Most Consumers Sitting Out The High-Def War

The New York Times notes that, despite the increasing variety of programs on the Blu-ray and HD-DVD formats, most US consumers are staying out of the DVD format war. This is a wise decision, the article states, because the two formats are essentially at a stalemate. "The two camps are victims of their own earlier success with DVD. The standard DVDs offered a quantum leap in quality from the picture and sound of VHS videotape, and for many that was more than adequate. In addition, DVD players that can convert images to near high-definition quality can be found for under $100, hundreds less than a true high-definition DVD player, further reducing the urgency to upgrade to one of the new formats."

Comments

Waiting For Dual

[markdavis]

Most of us are waiting for inexpensive, dual format (Blueray & HD-DVD) players. Who wants to buy into an expensive player that can only play half the movies or programs out there? As the work, friends, and family "hi tech" person, I recommend to everyone to wait for dual format. They find it amazing that I don't have either format yet.

Another group of prospects are waiting for ripping capability, so they can assert their fair use rights (even though they don't have any under the DMCA).

I don't predict either format will "win" nor "die" over the next few years. So, by each camp resisting dual-format, all they are doing is hurting the whole prospective market.

Lastly, a HUGE number of consumers can't even tell the difference between DVD and HD quality! The difference in sound is total marketing drivel. But the difference in picture- oh yes, it is major. But that goes to show... if most consumers can't even tell the difference, why should they pay more?

Re:Waiting For Dual

[FudRucker]

same here, waiting for dual support, or for one or the other to die off, i will not buy a high def DVD player only to find its format be the loser and have to buy another one later, i still have not bought a DVD-+R for my PC or even a DVD player but i will soon since the price has gotten so very low, (i do have one for my television)...

Re:Waiting For Dual

[pebs]

Another group of people is those that don't even care about the prospect of watching movies on these formats, but are more interested in data storage. They are waiting for the price to go down on writable media.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[rucs_hack]

I would have thought anyone buying one of those monster size TV's might want the HD player to go with it, whichever version.

Mind you, being a non telly owning wierdo, I don't actually know how usual it is to have a large TV, if it's very common to own one of those monster HD sets, and people still aren't buying HD players, then I imagine there might be a problem getting them to upgrade. For me, a dvd on my 19" wide screen monitor is more than enough, quality wise.

Personally I think this is all happening because people either remember (yup, I'm that old), or know of, the VHS/Betamax spat, and believe, no matter how marketing gurus try to spin it, that one format will lose and disappear, making any purchase a waste of money.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[Anonymous Coward]

"Another group of prospects are waiting for ripping capability, so they can assert their fair use rights (even though they don't have any under the DMCA)."

Whoa, there. People DO have fair use rights under the DMCA. Those rights haven't gone away. The peculiar situation introduced by the DMCA is having fair use rights, but not being able to legally exercise them because of the encryption and the illegality of circumventing it.

It would be kind of like paying to have the right drive your car on the street because you have a license, insurance, etc., but not actually being able to exercise that right because there is a wall built at the bottom of your driveway by the people who own the road, and it is illegal to knock it down.

[Okay, *you* come up with a better car analogy]

Re:Waiting For Dual

[stewbacca]

if most consumers can't even tell the difference, why should they pay more?

I don't know what the marketing term is, but there are plenty of people who buy more expensive stuff based on perceived abilities/values/specs, but they wouldn't be able to tell the difference had Consumer Reports/PCMag/Car-and-Driver/HomeTheaterMag/ProPhotographyMag etc. not told them so. I'm guilty of it myself from time-to-time, as well as most of you are, I'm sure. Many consumers aren't comfortable just buying something that is "good enough for me", because they hate the idea that there might be something better out there for the same price. Consumerism is a bitch.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[MtViewGuy]

I think what could change the entire equation is whether the main HD-DVD supporters (especially Toshiba and NEC) are willing to go for a generous licensing model to make it cheaper to manufacture players and discs, just like what JVC/Panasonic did with the VHS format in the late 1970's to middle 1980's. If they go this route, that could change everything almost overnight.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[garlicbready]

From what I've seen so far the only parts that actually look better on a movie at the moment
appear to be the CGI, or shots at a distance
everything else in terms of actors grass / backgrounds / closeups etc doesn't look all that different

there are a couple of exceptions to this
for real HD movies that make you go oooo, take a look at the box set "Planet Earth" made by the BBC
not as exciting as spiderman 3 (wildlife documentary), but it's about the best example of HD content I've seen so far, where you can really notice the difference
other than that, the bit at the beginning of hitch hikers guide is quite nice (the bit with the dolphins)

it kind of makes me wonder if some of these films are losing the "HD feel" because of post production somewhere (to get rid of all those spots and blemishes) on the film closeups

Re:Waiting For Dual

[cheater512]

Some of us live in countries where the government isnt owned by corporations.
Its a novel concept I know but it works well. ;)

And yes we are waiting for the root key to be cracked so we can put high def content on our media servers.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[Erwos]

"Lastly, a HUGE number of consumers can't even tell the difference between DVD and HD quality!"

I totally disagree - they can tell the difference (from my experience), and I'd be completely shocked if double-blind tests didn't bear this out. The color space and resolution differences alone are _very_ apparent to anyone who's looking at the test material.

It seems like some people don't get that, just because it's not as large a jump as from VHS (a terrible format) to DVD (a reasonably decent format), that it's not a considerable image quality jump on its own. If all consumers have eaten is dogfood (VHS) and spam (DVD), it's difficult for them to envision what steak (HD-DVD / BRD) tastes like until their friends have talked about it to convince them to try it themselves.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[Erwos]

Actually, I'm thinking that should read "that it is a considerable image quality jump".

Re:Waiting For Dual

[honestmonkey]

I don't think your analogy is quite right. VHS is not dogfood. I would say broadcast TV is dogfood. VHS allowed you to play back shows when you wanted, and record things off the TV. So lets say that VHS is a burger. Say a McDonald's burger, one of the cheap ones. DVDs bring that up to a good chicken dish, with a side of pasta and those breadsticks that are soft and warm. HD-DVD or BR might bring it up to lobster, but really, how often do you go have lobster? And that's just it. You go out to have lobster with all the trimmings and a good desert - movies. You don't usually bring home a lobster and cook it because it's a lot of trouble and it's just easier to stick with what's in the fridge. I mean the chicken is already defrosting and you have a can of the pop-n-fresh breadsticks. You've even got a bag of salad. For lobster, you'll need to get out the special plates, and melt some butter - do you even have butter, or just margarine? And your wife isn't a really a big fan of lobster, she'd just as soon have chicken. If she has to cook, she's not even sure how to cook the lobster anyway.

Mmmmm, breadsticks...

Re:Waiting For Dual

[CastrTroy]

I haven't seen too many demos of HD, but here's the things I think deserve some attention. The sky, which often shows "bands" of colour on DVD, and macroblocking, like with fire, or flashes of light. You can put all the resolution you want to into a movie, but if it's compressed too much, or with a crappy compression format, then this is still going to be a major problem. The frame is 4x times the size (in area), and the disc only has about 4-5 times the capacity. So if they haven't changed the encoding formats, I think we are still going to have a lot of the same quality problems we had before. Especially since they are trying to fit even higher quality audio with more channels on the disc as well.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[funkatron]

she's not even sure how to cook the lobster anyway.

Cooking lobster is exactly the same as cooking anything else: curry it.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone keeps saying Beta vs VHS is the comparison. I would compare it to DVD-R vs DVD+R. Unlike BETA & VHS, both HD formats will fit in the same drive.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[sm62704]

Who wants to buy into an expensive player that can only play half the movies or programs out there?

And actually, high definition isn't that damned great anyway. We've all seen high def, at least those of us who have been in a bar or a trore that sells TVs. Yes, the picture's a little sharper provided there's a high def feed, but honestly it's not worth the money. For what I paid for my 42 inch flat screen CRT I couldn't even get a nineteen inch high def.

It's just not worth the money. Plus, nobody wants to be betamaxed. Nobody in their right mind who actually has to show up every morning and work for their money os going to gamble it on a format war. Nobody in their right mind, any way.

The electronics industry (particularly Sony, don't they remember the betamax?) is incredibly stupid. Their idiotic format war is costing them billions.

As nerds, I'm sure you often her "if you're so damned smart whay ain't you rich?" Well, if these isiots are so damned rich, why ain't they smart? Pick a format and make money your stupid damned riuch bastards!

Not that it matters to me, I just bought my TV about 4 years ago and I'm not going to be in the market for another one any time soon. And without a high def TV I'm not going to need a high def DVD player.

-mcgrew

Re:Waiting For Dual

[Magatha]

Well I guess I can be classified as one of the "fools", I have had my BlueRay for one year now and don't regret the purchase one bit. I lived through the Beta-VHS war in the early 80's and I liked the Beta format better, so I guess I could be a fool twice!!! I can tell the difference from DVD and BlueRay, hell the regular DVD's are even better on my BlueRay player, but BlueRay action movies are the best and the Disney movies are enhanced much more. The colors are vibrant and yes you can see some things that you would not notice on a regular DVD. If you really enjoy movies, but don't want to go to the theaters, I would suggest that you go ahead and jump into HIGH DEF, it is worth the price!!!

Re:Waiting For Dual

[ScrewMaster]

[Okay, *you* come up with a better car analogy]

Okay, instead of a wall at the bottom of your driveway you have a motorized gate with a numeric keypad. You need a code to open the gate so you can drive your car, but the people who own the road won't give it to you. You could easily download a road-gate-code-cracker, but that's been made illegal.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[iainl]

They _have_ changed the encoding formats, however. Both AVC and VC-1 do an excellent job of removing macroblocking artifacts, and the space means that other compression artifacts are usually absent.

In fact, contrary to the grandparent, it's older movies I found the most pleasantly surprising upon the upgrade to HD-DVD. The likes of Blade Runner and Casablanca might make you go "wow" at the image quality for about 30 seconds, but then you just settle down and watch a film that actually _looks_ like a film rather than all those compression artifact compromises you're used to from DVD. It's not very "in your face", but it's instantly noticeable when you go back to watching standard-def again. By all accounts the same goes for BluRay as well, so as not to be format-biased about it.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[RobBebop]

I spend more for things from brands that I trust to last longer. If I get a $400 HDTV and it lasts 3 years before I have to replace it, then I would have been better off spending $800 for a HDTV that will last 6 years.

So, in 2004 I shelled out $800 for a nice Sony brand HDTV and $100 for a Sony DVD player. Both work great and have nearly interchangeable remote controls (which is another bonus for me). I feel like I'll have this TV for many more than 3 years in the future, so the "extra cost" is well worth it for (what I perceive as) better, longer lasting components.

I also spend more when my research determines that I need a certain minimum level of quality for my purposes (maybe this just makes me an educated consumer, who knows).

I spent $100 on a blender for making Frozen Margaritas. It has a strong motor that is needed to properly break ice. In that time, I have seen two friends get burned by cheaper blenders which couldn't handle the ice task. So, they have broken $40 appliances that need to be replaced. Meanwhile, I am still happily drinking margaritas.

So false perception of quality or not, sometimes spending more is cheaper.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but unlike DVD-R and DVD+R, the vast majority of drives will not read both formats. And the discs aren't interchangeable - that is, there aren't DVD+R discs that are capable of doing X but not Y, and aren't DVD-R discs capable of doing Y, but not X.

Whereas with Blu-ray and HD-DVD, once you make your choice, you'll find that some content is only available in the rival format. And you can't be that sure that ten years from now, your format will still exist and be capable of replacement with something that plays your old media.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[tacocat]

You might be waiting for a bi-mode player but I'm still looking at a perfectly functional TV, VHS, DVD and TiVO that are all Lo-Def. To replace everything in hardware alone would run about $2,000 and then what about all my old media?

And I don't expect HD DVD to be cheaper then what DVD costs..

So is there any motivation besides the consumerism I want what I want and I want it now syndrome? If you look at it from an economic vantage, there is no reason to move to HD until the parts are no longer available or maintenance is no longer cost effective. And considering that the US economy is pretty much on the rocks there are more people trying to conserve their finances rather than run up impulsive debts.

Personally, with the degradation of content quality and the escalation of recurring and non-recurring costs, I'm more inclined today to purchase Book of the Month club than Movies. But that's strictly my own opinion.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[Gravatron]

I got to watch parts of The Shining on Blue ray the other day. WOW. For the first time since release in cinemas, you actualy get to see what kubrick intended. Widescreen, bright colors, rich textures on cloths and kins, just overall amazing. I think this is where HD really shines: You get to see the film as originaly intended. No fading, no washout, just crystal clear picture and sound.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[Firethorn]

While I've read that the new formats are capable of more advanced compression, I believe that they're both using MPEG-2 at the moment.

Still, you'd expect any artifact to have a much smaller effect on the experience, given that any given artifact is going to tend to affect a quarter the visual area the DVD version would. IE rather than affecting .1% of the screen, it'll affect .025%.

I remember a review where they tried to decide which was better for overall quality: downscaling video from 640x480 to 320x240 or simply turning the compression up to get a final video of the same size.

They concluded that turning the compression up was the better solution as the blockyness of the downscaled then fullscreened video was worse than the frequent artifacting of the highly compressed video also on fullscreen. Basically, even back then the codecs were better at deciding what to lose than just evenly throwing away of 75% of the pixels.

Of course, they were playing around with the video equivalent of 32kbit mp3 streams - quality loss was guarenteed, thus allowing them to get a much better overall impression of the quality comparison as compared to trying to go over the video with a magnifying glass.

Of course, going to 64kbit from 32kbit will give a more perceptible increase in quality than going from 64 to 128 - and going from 128 to 196 or 256 starts getting into 'just how good is your stereo system?' territory.

Clearly, the old standard was a compromise between people's perception and technical abilities at the time. Today, DVD quality, even upscaled, is more than enough to get the story point across in a fashion 'good enough', much like 128kbit MP3 is 'good enough' through cheap headphones.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[BVis]

It's not that they can't tell the difference, it's just that they don't CARE. All they know is that $500 is more than $200 (cheap HD-DVD or Blu-Ray versus average-to-good DVD player). The Wal-Mart effect strikes again.

Course, I got the doorbuster HD-DVD player from Worst Buy on black friday for $200, so I'm going to recuse myself from that discussion.. oh, too late.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[swillden]

For the first time since release in cinemas, you actualy get to see what kubrick intended.

It's better than what Kubrick expected, actually. Don't forget all of the artifacts that show up in analog film; dust, scratches, and those funny curly lines that I'm not sure what they might be. Honestly, I find those much worse than the occasional compression artifacts on DVDs.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[ashridah]

But will the HDTV blend? [cue music]

Re:Waiting For Dual

[Saffaya]

"still have not bought a DVD-+R for my PC or even a DVD player "

Oh, you mean for your 286 ? Now could be a good time ^^

Re:Waiting For Dual

[quanticle]

If you're paying $200 for an average to good DVD player, you're getting ripped off. Good brands (e.g. Sony, Toshiba, etc) can be had for $150 or less in most cases. If you shop around, you can sometimes get these brands for less than a hundred.

It reinforces your point though. The cheapest HD-DVD player is Toshiba's $250 kit. The cheapest Blu-Ray player is the PS3. Both of these are twice as expensive (approximately) as a "good" DVD player. Add in the cost of a new TV (most consumers don't have HDTV yet either), and the hassle of removing and disposing of an existing TV, and you see that the switch to HD is much more expensive and troublesome than its worth to many consumers (myself included).

Re:Waiting For Dual

[Jaime2]

Not me. I'm staying away from all hi-def content until I can upgrade and keep my existing functionality. I have a multiple front-end MythTV system where I can record any program from any room or over the Internet and watch them in any room or over the Internet. I can also rip my DVD collection to the system to watch whenever and however I want.

When I can do that with HD, then I'll switch. Two of my TVs are already HD ready, I just need content (today's content doesn't count).

Re:Waiting For Dual

[ahabswhale]

Every government is owned by money, whether it's corporations, individuals, or other organizations. Some countries just hide it better. Thinking otherwise just shows your naiveté. The old saying, "money makes the world go 'round" doesn't just apply to the USA. If you find a country where greed doesn't exist, please let me know. I'd like to meet these people who are so evolved.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[Gravatron]

The original masters don't ususaly have those, but yeah, it's a common problem with 35mm filmstock. I used to work in a cinemplex and it was damn hard to prevent those kinds things.

I think Directors are going to be impressed by the abiility to get near master-perfect home copies of their films. Double that for those out their who demand unyeilding attention to detail in a film, like Kubrick did.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[hedwards]

Mind you, being a non telly owning wierdo, I don't actually know how usual it is to have a large TV, if it's very common to own one of those monster HD sets, and people still aren't buying HD players, then I imagine there might be a problem getting them to upgrade. For me, a dvd on my 19" wide screen monitor is more than enough, quality wise. I think that depends upon the home in which the TV is used. My parents have a 28" TV, I think, and you need to be able to sit fairly far away to make use of it. I don't have a TV at all, I recently received a visiontek tv wonder 600 usb stick, and it works well with my 22" wide screen monitor. I can sit a bit off, and still see it fine, but I wouldn't want to sit too far away. The only real downside is that I have to have my computer on and booted to Windows.

Personally I'm with you, I normally would say HD or whatever the higher spec'd device is, but for me, if I upsize the standard DVDs even without special algorithms, it looks just fine.

The Bluray and HD-DVD camps brought this on themselves by not merging their standards into a single one. Beta v., VHS was nearly 30 years ago, but people really resented being put into that sort of situation. I wouldn't be surprised if people sit this round completely out, until we get a standard video disc which plays on any current player.

Ultimately, I have quite a few DVDs, and I'm not about to replace them just because HD video is here, chances are a newer version of an old movie remastered isn't going to be much of an improvement on a newer disc anyways.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[Erwos]

Let me toss out one more thing, though: the best upscaling DVD players (eg, Oppo) are more like $250, and are much closer to the price range of HD players. Good video upscaling hardware isn't cheap.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[bberens]

Actually, no you wouldn't. The $400 you spend today is worth more than the $400 you spend 3 years from now to buy the second TV. Also, the second TV will probably be bigger or have some other whizbang feature which is nifty. So, in our bizarro world 3 years from now you could either replace your old TV with an exact duplicate which now costs LESS than $400, you could pay $400 and get something nicer, or you could spend $450 (which is worth the same as your previous $400 when adjusted for inflation at 4%) and get something EVEN NICER. Also, god forbid your priorities change or formats change, or whatever other thing might come along.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[InvalidError]

The frame is 4x times the size (in area), and the disc only has about 4-5 times the capacity. So if they haven't changed the encoding formats, I think we are still going to have a lot of the same quality problems we had before.

Although higher picture resolution increases the amount of information that needs to be compressed, most of that extra data is spatially and temporally redundant, making it easier for CODECs to do their job more efficiently with enhanced precision.

SD is 720x480 while Full-HD is 1920x1080. Pixel-wise, this is a 6X improvement. Video CODEC wise, HD-DVD and BD support MPEG2 (DVD), VC-1 and H264. While MPEG2 is horrible at maintaining clean edges, H264 fares vastly better and can already produce decent 1080p at DVD-class (4-7Mbps) MPEG2 video stream rates: from what I have seen, 4Mbps 1080p H264 already looks better than 4Mbps 480p MPEG2.

One problem I have with the current HD marketplace is it is filled with 720p/1080i and MPEG2 encodings. I will not be buying HD-DVD/BD movies until the movies I want get re-released in 1080p H264/VC1 - I do not want to buy into half-baked HD.

As for which format will win the war, I do not really care but I am betting on HD-DVD for its cleaner/simpler specs and lower production costs. Whatever may be the case, I will most likely end up owning devices for both formats: PS3 for gaming/BD and PC HD-DVD-RW for everything else.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[Anonymous Coward]

Cooking lobster is exactly the same as cooking anything else: curry it.

Unless you're in the South, then you deep fry it.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[RobBebop]

The only major "feature" that the TV in question that I bought three years ago lacks is "flat-panelness". I would have had to spend $1400 for that feature in 2004, but instead I opted for the cheaper CRT-style.

And you are right, I could have been really cheap in 2004 and gotten the Wal-Mart HDTV (which was about $600 at the time) and then upgraded this year because prices are lower and features are better... but a replacement cheapo-low end TV now would run me $400. Even adjusting for inflation and such... I would rather have the over-priced Sony for as long as it runs then worry about having the cheaper, low-end versions of the "latest" thing.

But thank you for nonetheless taring apart my over-simplified, illustrative example.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[Gravatron]

Actualy, I've noticed the opposite: its the close shots where the detail shines in HD. Watching the shining, I could literaly count the threads in Jack Nickolson's suit, see the close, subtley different bars of color that made up his tie's design, count the wiskers on his face and the pores on hs skin. Most of that was blured on the DVD and VHS versions. Watching the 5th element's remastered blu-ray, you could really see some detail that sliped though on even the suberbit DVD version. alot of the costumes in that show have intricate details, which really show in HD. Sometimes you notice stuff that i'm not sure was intented, like the flecks of glittery in the Diva's bodypaint. Is was viable on DVD, but really stands out in HD.

Agree with you completely on the Planet Earth stuff. That show is magnificent videowise. I thought a Scanner Darkly looked well in HD, as it was a digital to digital film, and the colors look alot saper in HD than in SD. The best films in HD seem to be the ones who put a lot of details into minor things, like clothing, props, makeup, etc.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[Anonymous Coward]

Until they bring the prices down on Bluray and HD-DVD movies to match DVD movies and build up a library of content worth watching, I have no interest in high def movies, dual-format player or not.

Unfortunately, the prices may never come down since they are likely just using the format change as an excuse to raise prices. And I'm not holding my breath for the content either since almost all of the things I watch on DVD wouldn't really benefit much from higher resolution.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[plover]

I've decided that LG won the format war. I bought their SuperBlu HD-DVD/BluRay/DVD/everything player for a couple of reasons. First, the TV has only two HDMI inputs and I use one for cable, leaving me with only one for a disc player. I could have purchased an HD-DVD player plus a BluRay player plus an HDMI switch for about the same amount of money, only with a much crappier form-factor.

What really drove this was the Wife Acceptance Factor. She didn't want to monkey around with all the different boxes, and she didn't want to have to figure out which shelves to browse in the movie section -- she wants to just buy a movie and not worry about whether we can watch it or not.

The LG player is quite nice, but I hate being an early adopter for stuff like this, because I just know something incompatible will happen in a few years. It does have an ethernet cable that can theoretically update the player, but how much incentive will LG really have to continue to keep me happy two years from now?

Re:Waiting For Dual

[thomas.galvin]

Most of us are waiting for inexpensive, dual format (Blueray & HD-DVD) players. I'm waiting for something to be included with a new MacBook, and to work with HandBrake. That's the game-winner, for me.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[Binestar]

This goes the other way as well.

You could pay $400 for an HDDVD player that lasts 3 years, then replace it with a $200 HDDVD player 3 years down the road that will last 3 years, for a total of $600.

This of course assumes that the $400 HDDVD player will do what you need (Akin to the $40 blender not doing what your friend needed).

Re:Waiting For Dual

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no intention of buying either until one is a clear winner. I have no interest in dual-format players because sooner or later one will win out or the NEXT big thing will come along and I'll be stuck with a collection of discs that one day I will be unable to play. I don't really care who wins; I just want a single format otherwise I'll be staying with regular DVD.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[Anonymous Coward]

Another group of prospects are waiting for ripping capability, so they can assert their fair use rights (even though they don't have any under the DMCA). Fair Use has never been a "right" -- either before or after the DMCA.

Fair Use is a legal defense. First, a claim must be made against you for copyright infringement, and then (and only then), does Fair Use come into play as a defense.

It's helpful to remember that Fair Use works sort of like an alibi works. You don't have a "right" to Fair Use for the same reason that you don't have a "right" to an alibi. But once a claim is made against you, both can help you to defend yourself.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[Hamilton Lovecraft]

Is there any labeling requirement for HD/BD releases to tell which codec they're using? If there's no guarantee that HD/BD is going to use a modern codec, I think I'm going to continue to buy movies off the iTunes store, since I can assume they're going to be using H.264.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[evilviper]

Lastly, a HUGE number of consumers can't even tell the difference between DVD and HD quality!

Bullshit.

Are there a large number of computer users who can't tell the difference between 640x480 and 1600×1200? The difference is the same.

Just because people don't realize that they don't have highdef sources, doesn't mean they won't be blown away the instant they finally do get to see one.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[chill]

I don't think your analogy is quite right. VHS is not dogfood. I would say broadcast TV is dogfood. VHS allowed you to play back shows when you wanted, and record things off the TV. So lets say that VHS is a burger.

That would make VHS regurgitated dogfood. I think you've hit on something here.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[evilviper]

I believe that they're both using MPEG-2 at the moment.

You are mistaken. Only the first generation BluRay discs used MPEG-2 compression. I don't believe a non-trivial number of HD-DVD discs ever did.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[sponglish]

I totally disagree - they can tell the difference (from my experience), and I'd be completely shocked if double-blind tests didn't bear this out. The color space and resolution differences alone are _very_ apparent to anyone who's looking at the test material.

I think you're mistaken, or if they can tell the difference, they don't care about it.

When I finally decided to buy a large screen LCD last year, I was shocked at the poor quality of the images on all sets. I work in graphic design, so I'm more sensitive to muddy and overly compressed images, but I couldn't believe that people would buy what was then high-end plasma and LCD TVs. I was about to leave when I saw a Samsung 1080p unit and fell in love. So you could say that until the 1080p models arrived, people buying lower resolution sets were getting screwed in image quality, HD or not, yet there were no loud complaints.

Also, when you consider how many TVs are set to stretch video so it fills the screen (regardless of what that does to image proportions) it's obvious that people don't care that much about image quality. )Heck even the "pros" at the Weather Channel set their monitors to stretch images so the video looks squashed!)

Re:Waiting For Dual

[quanticle]

True enough, but you'll find that a lot of the same cost/benefit calculations apply to purchasing upscaling DVD players as well. Namely, I'll only be buying an upscaling DVD player if I already own a HDTV. Since I don't already own an HDTV, I'm not going to shell out for one just so I can watch upscaled DVD movies (just like I'm not going to buy a new HDTV to watch HD movies).

I think the key year for HD in general will be 2009, when consumers are forced to abandon their existing analog TVs for digital sets. As analog TV goes dark, many consumers will take the jump to HD, rather than to standard definition digital TV. Once HDTVs gain market share over their standard definition brethren, I predict we'll see a noticeable up-tick in sales of HD players. But, as long as the vast majority of televisions in the US are standard defintion, there'll be no real push towards buying HD players.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[haijak]

Dual format players seam a bit of a red herring. There is no practical way for both formats to survive equally. Eventually one will become dominant, and the other will quickly fail.

People who buy dual format players, or both single format players, hurt the market more than anything else. They prolong the undecided status. Assuming one has the money, it would be better for them to choose a side, and vote with their wallets.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[HTH NE1]

i will not buy a high def DVD player only to find its format be the loser and have to buy another one later I guess I'm the opposite. I regret not acquiring a Digital Video eXpress player just to have that piece of history. I have both HD DVD (via XBOX 360 external drive) and Blu-ray (PS3) players, and recently purchased the Blade Runner 5-disc collection in limited edition cases in DVD, HD DVD, and Blu-ray formats. Though I doubt I'll be making another such triple-format purchase. (One other movie for which I'd consider it is already out on DVD and is not coming out on Blu-ray.)

The ability for HD DVD to completely replace DVD by selling only hybrid disks at same-as-DVD prices should be the killer feature for HD DVD to win, yet finding burners and blank media for HD DVD is nigh impossible in brick-and-mortar stores. Blu-ray may yet win being so early to market with burners and blank media, but still hard drives cost a quarter the amount per unit capacity these days and a failed encoding doesn't ruin the whole drive.

A grass-roots platform of HD HDD drives with content from independent filmmakers and home video recording could wipe both of the HD disk formats and their DRM off the map.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[evilviper]

The frame is 4x times the size (in area), and the disc only has about 4-5 times the capacity. So if they haven't changed the encoding formats, I think we are still going to have a lot of the same quality problems we had before.

You're wrong on every count.

First, the frame is 6X the size.

Second, they HAVE changed encoding formats. They both use h.264/AVC and VC-1, in addition to MPEG-2. h.264/AVC at least, has SERIOUSLY strong deblocking built-in (in-loop filter) that actually performs BETTER than codecs that do not encode data in blocks at all (eg. wavelets as found in JPEG2000/Dirac/Snow, etc).

Third, even if they stuck with MPEG-2, you would still have far superior quality, because of the nature of compressed video codecs. Both lossy and lossless video compression codecs offers increasing returns as you increase either resolution or frame-rate.

Generally, 4X the resolution only requires 2X the bitrate for equivalent quality... See VCD vs SVCD, or just try compressing some videos at home. Video codecs have a certain amount of overhead, no matter the resolution. Higher resolutions introduce some inherent economies as well, as the changes between each pixel that has to be stored is now 4X smaller (so the motion vector correction that has to be stored for each pixel is that much smaller). Not to mention that with run-length encoding, 200 pixels of the same color takes no more data than 5 pixel of the same color.

And what's more, MPEG macroblocks are 16x16 pixels across, no matter what the resolution of your video is... So if you have 4X the resolution (with an insufficient bitrate) the blockiness and banding will only be 1/4th the size. Watch a VCD sometime (1/4th the resolution of DVD), and you will notice that blocks look GIGANTIC.

Finally, the artifacts on DVDs are generally not the fault of MPEG-2. The cheaper DVD players actually have highly inaccurate decoders... I've encoded several myself, only to see major errors in the decoder that causes what should be a nearly perfect picture to break apart. If you have a decent DVD player (or use a computer) it may be the fault of the terrible hardware MPEG-2 encoders used by the DVD's creators. Or, similarly, it can be the fault of the heavy denoising they do on the video before encoding... It's surprising just how often studios chose to squeeze a 2+ hour movie onto a single-layer disc.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[gEvil (beta)]

Most disc boxes will tell you the resolution information (usually 1080p), but they don't give you information regarding the video codec used. For that (and more) information, your best bets are the HD DVD Stats and Blu-ray Stats sites.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[CharlieHedlin]

Most consumers have cable or satellite and won't notice when the date passes.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[Anonymous Coward]

DVD supports mpeg-2, while HD/BD support mpeg-4 as well.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[FredMenace]

I agree that as the tech expert many of my family, friends and co-workers go to for advice, I've also been counseling people to wait for inexpensive dual-format players.

In addition to those who appearantly can barely tell the difference between DVD and HD quality, there are many more who don't really care much, even if they can see a difference. Yes, many large-screen HD TVs have been sold in the last few years, but most, appearantly, only because they are LARGE and FLAT, not because they are high-definition.

Last, those who are waiting for ripping capability from BluRay may have a long wait. If I got to vote for which format would die a quick death, it would definitely be BluRay. Just more of the same anti-consumer shenanigans that we've come to expect from Sony (excessive DRM and copy control, fewer options for "fair use" of content, and lots more incompatibilities, non-working features, etc., of which we've only seen the beginning, on top of higher manufacturing costs for both hardware [complex laser assembly, high patent royalties] and content, which would keep the prices for BluRay discs and maybe players higher in the long term compared to HD DVD).

Re:Waiting For Dual

[Buran]

They exist but cost about $1000. I, too, think dualformat for $500 or less is what people need. I'd be willing to spend that much, but not more, on being able to play everything out there.

Why can't these shortsighted people realize that their inability to work out a solution and sitting there screaming "Our format rocks, yours sucks!" is just keeping everyone away?

Re:Waiting For Dual

[markdavis]

You can "bull" it all you want. I base my comments on direct observations of people, in stores, with HDTV's displaying both upscaled DVD and HD-DVD/Blueray. Plus observations from those in my house that did not realize a certain program was not HD. And even a few people who could not tell when I intentionally switched from HD to SD to HD to SD on the same program.

From a reasonable distance, many people either just can't tell the difference or don't care. I certainly do notice and care! I am even one of those who is constantly annoyed by overcompression artifacts... I was surprised, too, how many people couldn't tell. Goes to show you- different people are different.

And your example with computer monitors? No, it is not at ALL the same. Reading static text several inches away from a monitor is completely different from rapidly moving images viewed several feet away.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[goofyspouse]

one format will lose and disappear, making any purchase a waste of money. By my math, with two formats, there is approximately a 50% chance of one's purchase being a waste of money.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[Buran]

That's when I back over the grass instead.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[Anonymous Coward]

There's also a few other things that actually make the experience with the new formats worse than DVDs. I've got a Blu-Ray player hooked up at my house (it was a free kickback after referring someone who spent a bundle on HT equipment), and the picture is somewhat better than DVD, though the difference is quite a bit less when compared to the satellite HD channels. But one thing that is quite annoying is how long it takes between powering on the player and it being ready to use. It's to the point where we either leave the thing on constantly (waste of electricity) or power it on and go do something else for 5 minutes before coming back to watch the movie. There's also the DRM fun that limits you from being able to create an iPod version and the fact that disks are often twice as much as their DVD counterpart.

It makes the whole experience is a lot less compelling.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[greyhueofdoubt]

I work with a pseudo-audiophile (he likes vinyl but can't back up his argument).

When he burns CDs, he always puts them on the ones that say "Perfect Audio Reproduction" or some nonsense. He believes that the more expensive, 'audio' blanks are better for audio, even though I've explained it to him. I gave him a mix CD of soundboard Led songs, and he re-burned it onto the 'audio' CD.

Some people are just idiots, I'm sorry.

-b

Re:Waiting For Dual

[mpe]

Okay, instead of a wall at the bottom of your driveway you have a motorized gate with a numeric keypad. You need a code to open the gate so you can drive your car, but the people who own the road won't give it to you. You could easily download a road-gate-code-cracker, but that's been made illegal.

The good news is that they want to get rid of the keypad. The bad news is that their planned replacement system involves calling them up and explaining why you need to travel. (If you are North of the Equator you need to call their Wellington office, if you are in the South you call their Oslo office)...

Re:Waiting For Dual

[Anonymous Coward]

Trust me here..... broil your lobster

Move an oven rack 3 inches below the top burner. Set it to "high", or 550..., make the top burner stay on. Let it heat up. Slice the lobster longways down the tail. Bend the lobster tail longways to expose the meat. Put butter and a very very slight amount of garlic on the lobster. Set it on the top rack until the meat Starts to turn brown in some spots. At that point they are done. Eat them with melted butter. The Coldwater lobsters are tastier then warmwater ones. Look at where it comes from.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[Creechur]

Except that the audio takes up very little space compared to the video, and the encoding formats have changed to codecs that are way more efficient (many times smaller for similar quality). Early Blu-ray releases were still in MPEG2, but about 2/3 of the BR discs out there now use H.264 or VC-1, and that number's only going to get larger. Almost none of the HD-DVD discs use MPEG2.

Some sample numbers here.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think your analogy is quite right. VHS is not dogfood. I would say broadcast TV is dogfood. VHS allowed you to play back shows when you wanted, and record things off the TV. So lets say that VHS is a burger. Say a McDonald's burger, one of the cheap ones. DVDs bring that up to a good chicken dish, with a side of pasta and those breadsticks that are soft and warm. HD-DVD or BR might bring it up to lobster,

This is where you lost me.

Mmmmm, breadsticks...

And this is where you won me back.....mmmmm indeed, breadsticks.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[Jeremy Erwin]

Only if you plan to buy/rent/view a minimal number of discs between now and obsolescence.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, like >90% of people, you say "Screw that! Why use a car at all? I'm walking or using a bicycle."

Re:Waiting For Dual

[dorath]

[Okay, *you* come up with a better car analogy]

It's legal for you to do work on your own car, but the manufacturer wont give you the code that allows you to open the hood and it's illegal for you to circumvent the hood-locking mechanism.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[InvalidError]

Is there any labeling requirement for HD/BD releases to tell which codec they're using?

Read the labels and check out online databases. Obsolete MPEG2 is sadly most common (around 40% of titles) on the often preferred Blu-Ray while the vast majority of HD-DVD titles are VC1. H264 is by far the least common on either media, presumably because it is the most CPU-intensive CODEC.

At least BD has mandatory PCM audio as an HiFi-bound plus... but that's overkill, a total waste of storage space and unnecessary stream bitrate inflator for 99% of people.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[TehZorroness]

Why is it that car analogies are modded "5 Insightful" and food analogies are modded "5 Funny?" :(

Re:Waiting For Dual

[Xugumad]

Considered the LG GGCH20L drive? http://uk.lge.com/products/model/detail/bluray_ggch20l.jhtml - Blu-Ray and HD-DVD support from a single drive, currently selling in the UK for £140 including software. Okay, that's not cheap, but it's a hell of a lot less expensive than they used to be. Standalone dual format players are also out there from LG and Samsung.

I'm certainly of the opinion that essentially we're now stuck with both formats. Blu-Ray has an edge in movies, IMHO, but HD-DVD has more TV and lower prices. With dual format drives coming down in price, I think it won't be long before people just look for either HD format, without caring if it's HD-DVD or Blu-Ray.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm still waiting for my multi-format, networked, broadband connected, multi-terabyte SSD entertainment unit for storage, backup and playback of all my audio/video/HD content.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[Anonymous Coward]

I was under the impression that a slightly modified 1080i is standard for HD-DVD, so you can't expect any HD-DVDs to be 1080p...

Anyhow, I have a few Blu-ray movies and most of them look very good on my FullHD TV...however, so do DVDs when scaled properly; the PS3 scales very nicely since firmware version 1.8 or something like that.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[seebs]

I want a large TV so I can see it easily from further away -- not so I can see more detail on it up close.

I don't really care about HD. The reason people get HD sets is that HD-ness is mandated by law, essentially, so people getting a large set gets HD, whether they care or not.

I was once told that, at a trade show a while back, a survey of PS3 owners with HDTVs showed that a substantial portion of them (close to half) were still using the composite cables that came in the box, thus, getting a 480i signal. Because, you know, you plug it in and it works.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[AnyNoMouse]

I was under the impression that a slightly modified 1080i is standard for HD-DVD, so you can't expect any HD-DVDs to be 1080p...

That's not quite correct. The stream is a slightly modified 1080p24 stream that adds information for 1080i playback. When the source is 24p (most movies), only 24 frames per second are stored and a player could throw away the 1080i hints and play the source back at 1080p24.

Re:Waiting For Dual

[Kimos]

Hey! Didn't I read about you in the news?

Re:Waiting For Dual

[jesse285]

You are so right and the more money we spend the less we get.

Anyone else hate idiots like this?

[Jason1729]

The two camps are victims of their own earlier success with DVD. The standard DVDs offered a quantum leap in quality from the picture and sound of VHS videotape

From Wikipedia:
In physics, a quantum leap or quantum jump is a change of an electron from one energy state to another within an atom.

So a quantum leap is a very, very tiny change, usually smaller than a nanometer. If the writer is stupid enough to think a sub-nanometer change means something big, why would one take anything he has to say seriously?

Re:Anyone else hate idiots like this?

[gander666]

I was going to moderate this, but I have to respond. The Wiki article states in "Physics" and is thus correct. However, in general usage, quantum is a discrete shift in value, rather than a minor shift in a continuum. It can be small (as int he physics example), or it can be large. It all depends on the frame of reference, and what you are gaging.

It is this that I think that the article is referring to (correctly). Being a physics geek, I had to set the record straight.

Re:Anyone else hate idiots like this?

[DeeQ]

Oh I don't know... Maybe because it was published in the NYtimes?

Re:Anyone else hate idiots like this?

[mattgoldey]

Anyone else hate idiots like Jason1729?

If you had kept reading that very same Wikipedia page, you would have seen this:

In the vernacular, the term quantum leap has come to mean an abrupt change or "step change", especially an advance or augmentation. The term dates back to early-to-mid-20th century, coinciding with the discoveries of quantum mechanics. The popular and scientific terms are similar in that both describe a change that happens all at once (revolutionary), rather than gradually over time (evolutionary), but the two uses are different when it comes to the magnitude of the change or advance in question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_leap

Re:Anyone else hate idiots like this?

[EvilSS]

"Anyone else hate idiots like this?"

Yep, almost as much as the idiots that use logical fallacies to attack them.

Re:Anyone else hate idiots like this?

[jmpeax]

While a quantum leap may represent a very small change in physics, the idiom "quantum leap" nonetheless means a large advance.

The only thing worse than language Nazis are the people who think they're qualified to be language Nazis, but are actually just pedants who are lost in misinterpretation and warped logic.

Re:Anyone else hate idiots like this?

[PNutts]

So a quantum leap is a very, very tiny change, usually smaller than a nanometer. If the writer is stupid enough to think a sub-nanometer change means something big, why would one take anything he has to say seriously?

Um, if you RTFA in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_leap and *finish* it, you find in the next section titled Popular Useage:

...In the popular sense, the term is usually applied to mean a large or significant change, which is thus not strictly correct.

Re:Anyone else hate idiots like this?

[unimatrixzer0]

And all this time I thought Quantum Leap was what Dr. Sam Beckett used to change history for the better.

Re:Anyone else hate idiots like this?

[sjaguar]

Hmm. I received a different result when I did my search.

Re:Anyone else hate idiots like this?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have only one thing to add to this. The term applies to an abrupt, discontinuous, and significant change. The original poster is mistaken in assuming that all changes that take place on the scale of nanometers are insignificant.

Re:Anyone else hate idiots like this?

[Oktober Sunset]

I've seen that family guy episode, and I'm pretty certain you're thinking about Jesus there.

Re:Anyone else hate idiots like this?

[Anonymous Coward]

My personal 2c. It is indeed true that a quantum leap is (generically speaking) a small variation of some quantum observables but it is also a change that throws away the old quantum state to supersede it with another one (see 'adiabatic theorem' in quantum mechanics) so it can be seen as: 'the smallest modification that radically changes a known, stated situation'. By that interpretation the common usage is (roughly) correct.
Please keep in mind that we are grossly oversimplifying the underlying physics here.

Re:Anyone else hate idiots like this?

[trickyrickb]

Oh boy!

Re:Anyone else hate idiots like this?

[headkase]

I thought it was all about putting right what once went wrong... !

Re:Anyone else hate idiots like this?

[Mark J Tilford]

Just "a very small change"? IIRC, a definition would be "the smallest change that can possibly happen".

Re:Anyone else hate idiots like this?

[VisceralLogic]

The two camps are victims of their own earlier success with DVD. The standard DVDs offered a quantum leap in quality from the picture and sound of VHS videotape

From Wikipedia:
In physics, a quantum leap or quantum jump is a change of an electron from one energy state to another within an atom.

So a quantum leap is a very, very tiny change, usually smaller than a nanometer. If the writer is stupid enough to think a sub-nanometer change means something big, why would one take anything he has to say seriously? If you look at a quantum leap on its own scale (i.e., atomic scale), that's a pretty big jump. Besides which, the point is not the size of the jump, but that it instantaneously transferred from one state to another, without moving between them. Just like DVD was not a slow evolution of gradual improvement over VHS... it instantaneously improved the standard. In other words, it was a quantum leap.

Re:Anyone else hate idiots like this?

[Blakey Rat]

There's more than one definition of the phrase "quantum leap" you know. Just be happy they didn't use "paradigm shift."

Re:Anyone else hate idiots like this?

[strong_epoxy]

Wow, them are fighten' words there. Good thing you can safely hide behind the internet.

Re:Anyone else hate idiots like this?

[ScrewMaster]

So a quantum leap is a very, very tiny change, usually smaller than a nanometer.

Okay, fine. You tell that to Scott Bakula.

Re:Anyone else hate idiots like this?

[ejecta]

Internet/parents basement - it's all the same ;)

Re:Anyone else hate idiots like this?

[sjames]

Yes, but if you're an electron, a quantum leap cam be very exciting indeed!

Who cares? They're cheap.

[Seumas]

Players are cheap and they'll only get cheaper. Even the dual players. So why not just buy one, get movies for that format and if the one you choose doesn't turn out to be the winner, buy the other player when it's cheap, too. It's not that big of an investment. I have a bluray player right now and the few movies I buy (why have a collection of MOVIES -- how many times can you see the same crap?) -- but if HD wins in a year, I'll just go drop $100 for a HD player and start buying them in that format. It's not like the "loser" will never be playable again. It's like "holding out" for ogg versus mp3. Who cares? You can usually play both. So what's the solution, in the meantime you're going to waste your expensive high def TV watching shitty standard format DVDs?

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[stewbacca]

So what's the solution, in the meantime you're going to waste your expensive high def TV watching shitty standard format DVDs?

Although I don't really support your flippant attitude about just buying (and rebuying) whatever format comes out on top (not everyone can afford two $400 players), I think you are on to something here. While I don't fully understand the specifics of all the formats and definitions, I do know that my HD Movie Rentals from my cable company look great and store nicely on my HD DVR box. Hell, even Lord of the Rings broadcast in high def on TBS the other weekend looks great when played back on my DVR (much better than my DVDs). If these movie studios don't pull their heads out soon, these disc-based systems will never take off and we'll all be pulling our content from our cable providers on demand instead (not that that will stick it to the man at all).

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[lena_10326]

So what's the solution, in the meantime you're going to waste your expensive high def TV watching shitty standard format DVDs?

Yes.

Besides, I don't think Food Network is broadcast in HD yet.... that's what I mostly watch. That and the home improvement channels.

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[Evl]

I agree. I recently bought an HD-DVD player. Prior to doing so, I had actually told Netflix that I had both types of players, and had been keeping track of which of the movies I watched were available in what format. By a fair margin, there were more Blu-Ray than HD-DVD movies that I wanted to watch, but the price of Blu-Ray was too high for me to justify the cost during a format war.

After Christmas, I was able to pick up the HD-DVD player for $165. At that price I figured what the heck... there may be more Blu-Ray movies, but there are enough HDDVDs to make it interesting. I'll watch the HD-DVD movies I want to see now, and when a Blu-Ray player hits a similar price, I'll start watching those too.

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[Pensacola Tiger]

The Food Network is available in HD, but your provider probably doesn't offer it yet.

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[bwintx]

Actually, Food Network does have an HD version. It's on FIOS, and probably other sources as well.

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Food Network HD is available on DirecTV. I watch it all the time.

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[Anonymous Coward]

So what's the solution, in the meantime you're going to waste your expensive high def TV watching shitty standard format DVDs?

No, I spend my time watching MP2 or MP4. So if I cannot rip to these formats not interested. Soooo...can I rip these formats yet?

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[pebs]

Players are cheap and they'll only get cheaper. Even the dual players. So why not just buy one, get movies for that format and if the one you choose doesn't turn out to be the winner, buy the other player when it's cheap, too.
[...]
So what's the solution, in the meantime you're going to waste your expensive high def TV watching shitty standard format DVDs?

You are under the false assumption that everyone has bought an HDTV. In any case, those who do have HDTVs get HD programming (from cable/satellite/over-the-air), have game systems that take advantage of it, and some have computers connected to it. HD quality movies are now showing up on torrent sites. So the physical format can be skipped altogether.

The vast majority of people don't even have an HDTV. Most people were very slow to switch from VHS, and some are still haven't. They are going to be slow to switch from SD and DVD's to HD and HD-DVD/Blueray. And the current players may be "cheap" for you, but they won't really be "cheap" for most people until you can get a player for $30.

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[MWPollard]

$100 for a 1080i player or $300 for a true HD player is cheap?!?

$100 for a true HD player is reasonable, but still not low enough for buying multiples. After the format is decided, I might buy one player at that price. They'll eventually go even lower. (Remember when a single-disk CD player was $200+?)

A player for $15 (on sale regularly) that handles progressive-scan DVDs with component video and optical audio is cheap.

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[Technician]

So why not just buy one, get movies for that format and if the one you choose doesn't turn out to be the winner, buy the other player when it's cheap, too. It's not that big of an investment.

The same reason I have been dissapointed with my Laserdisc purchase. The promises were big. The movies could be pressed much cheaper than making a tape. The format was free from copyguard as it conformed to the NTSC spec at broadcast quality.

Royalties and reluctant movie studios killed it. I was rewarded with poor selection at high prices, much like anything HD now. I have learned from my mistake. I have a $1000 player, and a library of less than 8 movies in that format. (that's less than a movie a year for those counting. VHS movies fell from $35 to under $15 for most movies, while Laserdisc movies became a premium video item with movies starting at $60 and up. DVD's hit the price points that laserdisc never did, but they came with evil DMCA protection and region coding.

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[Wdomburg]

Because I don't want to be faced with repurchasing a chunk of my movie collection or trawling the used market a few years down the line when one of my players goes tits up and I can't buy a new one because the format lost. Seems pretty simple to me.

(I actually have an HD-DVD player now, since I ran across a good deal when I needed a new player anyways, but I will only purchace combo discs for the foreseeable future. For compatability with our other six DVD players as well as hedging my bets.)

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[gatzke]

Better yet, my provider offers Food Network in HD, but only if you use their stinky Scientific Atlanta cable box.

They are using switched digital, so cable card users (Tivo HD) are screwed on most of the HD channels.

Switched digital is apparently on demand cable service, so they don't pipe all the HD channels into everyones house. The low demand channels (ESPN2, Food, MTV) are only piped on demand, and cable cards don't do that yet.

BTW, Tivo HD is awesome. Just got one, and it is 10x better than the SA box, even if I can't get all the programming. It is also 10x easier to set up and maintain than the HTPC boxes I have tried (MythTV and Beyond).

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[Jeff DeMaagd]

The vast majority of people don't even have an HDTV.

It's not so "vast" anymore. I think 30% of US households have an HDTV now, and it's increasing pretty rapidly. 70% being SD-only households is a lot but it's ever shrinking.

And the current players may be "cheap" for you, but they won't really be "cheap" for most people until you can get a player for $30.

I bought my Toshiba HD-DVD player for $99. The $30 cheap DVD player probably costs more than that in the long run. I'm willing to bet that a person would have to buy more than three of those $30 players over the lifetime of my one player to cover the device failures. Based on my experience with my parent's DVD players, I'd be right.

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[Anonymous Coward]

The format matters to you, but you're willing to convert? I think you're just using code for "I want to pirate"

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[lena_10326]

Hmm.. I'll have to call and ask...

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[chrisgeleven]

Food Network is in HD on some providers. The good news? Every program on it is HD...no stretch-o-vision or bad quality upconverts.

The bad news? It isn't a simulcast of the regular channel, so you rarely get new episodes of shows...it is all repeats (it isn't uncommon for the same episode to repeat 3 times a day). And for some reason, there is no Emeril and no Rachel Ray in HD yet. If you are a Food Network junkie, it is real easy to quickly see all of the available HD episodes real quick.

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[Magatha]

Oh you are wrong...HGTV and Food Network are broadcasted in HD...Direct TV now has about 30 HD channels...

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[zhrike]

So what's the solution, in the meantime you're going to waste your expensive high def TV watching shitty standard format DVDs?

I have a 52" HD tv, and with an composite connection, those "shitty standard format DVDs" (sic) still look damn good. It's not a
sacrifice, holding onto standard format DVDs for a while, plus, they're cheap.

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[pebs]

It's not so "vast" anymore. I think 30% of US households have an HDTV now, and it's increasing pretty rapidly. 70% being SD-only households is a lot but it's ever shrinking.

Where did that statistic come from?

The $30 cheap DVD player probably costs more than that in the long run. I'm willing to bet that a person would have to buy more than three of those $30 players over the lifetime of my one player to cover the device failures. Based on my experience with my parent's DVD players, I'd be right.

That's funny because my parent's had the same experience. They went through 2 ~$30 players before they finally bought a decent one. But that doesn't dispute the idea that $30 is the buy-in price for a lot of people, whether or not they are buying something that is going to fail or not.

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[blincoln]

I think 30% of US households have an HDTV now, and it's increasing pretty rapidly.

Do you have a cite for that? I'm not trying to nitpick, I'm honestly curious. 30% seems insanely large to me based on my circle of friends and acquaintances. I know 2 people who have what I would consider a "genuine" HDTV (1080i or 1080p). Another 2-3 have those Panasonic 42" plasma monitors that are 1024x768 (which I guess is considered a subclass of 720p, but is missing something like 1/3 of the horizontal resolution of true 720p).

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[murdocj]

So why not just buy one, get movies for that format and if the one you choose doesn't turn out to be the winner, buy the other player...

the few movies I buy (why have a collection of MOVIES -- how many times can you see the same crap?)

Ok... I'm baffled. I agree that it doesn't make sense to have a huge collection of movies, most of which you'll never watch again (wish I could convince my wife!) but if that's true, why on earth would you buy not one, but two hi-def players? Especially since, as far as I can tell, there just isn't that huge a difference between dvd and hi-def quality?

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[Posting=!Working]

The $30 cheap DVD player probably costs more than that in the long run. I'm willing to bet that a person would have to buy more than three of those $30 players over the lifetime of my one player to cover the device failures. Based on my experience with my parent's DVD players, I'd be right.

Based on my experience, the $30 DVD players are a lot more reliable than the expensive ones. I ran pawn shops for 4 years, if we hooked up an expensive DVD player (Pioneer, Sony, etc.) to our display TV's, it would last about a month of playing 10 hours/day before refusing to play any more discs, and we'd have to throw it out. The cheap ones (Magnavox, SV2000, etc.) would last many months, we wouldn't even stop or turn them off overnight, 24/7 use for 4+ months. We got them used, and would sell them after this abuse, and got no complaints. Nearly every DVD player that someone brought back was a big name brand (no, we didn't sell the known broken ones.) I know this isn't scientific proof, but it's a much larger sample space (probably around 100 or so display DVD players in the shops over 4 years.)

Now the expensive ones had a better picture and better features, but for reliability, the cheap ones rock.

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[berashith]

This comment fully covers the reasons that I have not yet bought into the HD experience. When HD finally means something, and not just a stepping stone to the next thing, and that final piece becomes standard and commoditized, then I will purchase. Trying to follow an ever changing set of resolutions that all fall under the HD range takes more time than I am willing to give. I admint that time is near zero, but that is my point.

I want an HD tv and an HD player taht both communicate in exactly the same structure. This includes the version of HDMI that won't be changed at random to prevent someone from stealing ( and cause my quality to be reduced), and the ability to easily play from my computer without fighting the hardware vendors there also.

I have a ton of cash waiting to buy up some interesting gear, as soon as I dont feel foolish for buying into an endless upgrade cycle.

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[ZorbaTHut]

[i]So what's the solution, in the meantime you're going to waste your expensive high def TV watching shitty standard format DVDs?[/i]

No, I'm going to waste my expensive high-def TV playing videogames.

I don't think it's worth buying a bluray player or an hd-dvd player for the relatively few movies I'd end up watching on it until cheap and good dual-format players come out. Which they will. It's not "never buy these", it's "wait on buying these until they're even cheaper".

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[walt-sjc]

Well, besides the attitude, it's overly simplistic.

Lets say you invested in blueray, and HD wins. It's not just the cost of the player, it's the media. SO if your old blueray player breaks 5 years down the road, your only option to watch your content is trying to find some other old player off ebay. Frankly, I don't want to use either player - I want to use my home media server.

The bigger issue, and I've said it before, is being able to exercise your fair use rights and be able to make backups / format shift. Until I can, I won't invest in either format. I waited years before buying DVD's until the process was easy / reliable. I don't want my purchased content locked to a particular format / device. I don't want the player locking me into to watch 10 mins of trailers before I can get to the damn movie.

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[Name Anonymous]

Because I don't want to be faced with repurchasing a chunk of my movie collection or trawling the used market a few years down the line when one of my players goes tits up and I can't buy a new one because the format lost. Seems pretty simple to me. A rather good point. I have a fair number of 12" laser discs and a player that is working fine. When the player dies, I doubt I'd be able to get a decent replacement. And not all of the movies I have on laser disc are available on DVD (amazingly enough) and these are the ones I actually watch most often.

And as for a HD TV, I will get one of those either when my current TV dies or maybe when the HD-DVD vs. BluRay is settled. As it is my local cable company is in the process of changing ownership, so I wouldn't want to buy anything until I see what the new owner provides for service (equipment requirement wise) in my area.

And I am also a little skittish about buying a HD TV since the early adopters got screwed over since theirs don't have the HDMI interface. Who knows what other important changes might creep in before analog TV is cut off in the US.

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[AC5398]

It was the first season BSG box set on HD-DVD that made me buy a HD-DVD player, an investment I don't regret. If, in time, Blu-Ray wins the format war I'll hunt down a PS3 on sale.

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[jedidiah]

No. He's using code for "I want to play my content Star Trek
TNG style" and don't want to be overcharged by Sony to do it.

      Physical DVD jukebox tech is gravely lacking while at the
same price being absurdly overpriced.

      Due to current laws and policies, it's simpler to pirate something
than just exercise fair use with the copy that you happen to have lying
around.

      It's technologically easier to be a mooch than to buy a copy and "do it right".

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[Name Anonymous]

Players are cheap and they'll only get cheaper. Not every one has the spare cash to be buying stuff that will only get replaced within a year or so. And too many people have overly high credit card debt as it is. In my case I prefer not to waste money on a piece of electronics that won't last me more than a year or two. My stereo has components in it that are from 8 years to 30 years old in it and the old components work just fine. Yes I still have a turntable as well.

I won't mind spending $200 to $300 for a high def disc player when the format war settles. As long as the player will last several years. Heck even my VCR is 20 years old and is working just fine. But then again I didn't buy the cheapest model on the market.

(And no I'm not driving a beater. I recognize when the cost of repair is going to be more than owning a new car.)

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[shark72]

"Do you have a cite for that? I'm not trying to nitpick, I'm honestly curious."

I googled on "high definition penetration" and got some results that were so not what I was looking for, but when I refined my search I found this page, which cites a CEA statement from April that penetration is at 28%. The CEA is a trade group (think CEA::electronics industry as RIAA::record industry as AMA::medical industry) which runs CES, so apply whatever grains of salt you deem worthy.

My educated guess is that they include 720p sets in that figure (720p sets are regularly sold with "HDTV" labelling). In the case of a 720p set, I believe that a standard-def DVD player with an HDMI cable will provide the same output quality as a hi-def player.

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[rearden]

Are you kidding me! The studio's would LOVE this. For most users they would be unable to "steal" the content and upload it to others. They would have the majority of the users paying per VIEWING (OnDemand) and they would be able to update the movie trailers and ads. This would be a dream for the studios, the loss would be for the end users. No more taking your DVD to a friends to watch, or sharing or passing on Disney movies from one family to another.

No, the real looser in this battle of the stupid is the consumers. If this takes too long we all loose. I personally hope that Sony looses, but that is just because I am tired of their proprietary storage formats they are always pushing on us.

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[gEvil (beta)]

Or you can just buy one of the myriad dual-format players that will be available. Even if one format becomes the standard, there are enough discs of both types out there that dual-format players will be easy to come by for a long time to come. Not to mention that many of the internal components used are identical for the two formats.

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[cthulu_mt]

The Food Network in hi-def? I think Rolad Dahl has prior art on that. Its called Wonka-vision.

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[gEvil (beta)]

My educated guess is that they include 720p sets in that figure (720p sets are regularly sold with "HDTV" labelling). In the case of a 720p set, I believe that a standard-def DVD player with an HDMI cable will provide the same output quality as a hi-def player.

Yes, 720p is considered HD, and it has about 4x the resolution of a standard 480i signal. Either BD or HD DVD material (which are almost always 1080p sources) looks stunning on a mid-sized 720p set, and definitely outperforms even upconverted SD DVD. Here's a nice chart that shows you screen size vs viewing distance for the various resolutions. Basically, for most home living room configurations, a 720p set is more than adequate. 1080p becomes a bigger factor if you happen to have a very good-sized viewing room, or you plan on setting up a proper home theater.

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[DragonWriter]

Players are cheap and they'll only get cheaper.

720p to 1080p TVs, OTOH, are not all that cheap. And SDTVs and 1080i "HD" CRTs that'll do 540p don't benefit from HD players compared to progressive-scan DVD players. For most consumers, there is no compelling reason to upgrade to HDTVs and players if their current equipment is working. (My wife and I recently upgraded from a 1080i CRT to a 1080p LCD and picked up a Blu-Ray player -- a PS/3 -- but we don't have kids and each individually make over the median household income in the country, so are hardly they typical consumer -- and even we wouldn't have done it just for the movies [or just for the game console, either].)

So what's the solution, in the meantime you're going to waste your expensive high def TV watching shitty standard format DVDs?

Many consumers don't have a high-def TV that would benefit from HD over DVD, and many that do have such a TV are probably satisfied with getting their HD content from cable or satellite for now.

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[Chainsaw]

I would call English the big loser here...

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[BrianRoach]

So what's the solution, in the meantime you're going to waste your expensive high def TV watching shitty standard format DVDs?

You're kinda late to the party, aren't you?

I've had HD since '98 (Toshiba 65" rear-projection, 480p/1080i). At the time, just getting progressive scan was a huge difference (To the tune of $1000 - I still use that DVD player today as I just can't bear to toss it, never mind that it was one of their "pro" units and it's built like a tank).

Since then, "pro-sumer" stereo receivers have added upscaling to their bag of tricks, as well as a lot of the newer HD tvs (at least DLP, my Samsung does it). You don't even have to go buy one of the upscaling DVD players (and you can still use component if you want). When we moved I sold the 65" behemoth due to the new house just not being suited for it, and now have a 47" DLP and a 42" LCD.

The picture difference between an upscaled standard DVD vs. a "HiDef" DVD is really not much unless you have a 65+ inch display. Given that the new disks are 3x - 4x more expensive and you need to purchase additional hardware (that may be worthless in a year depending on which way the war goes), it's almost a no-brainer for most people NOT to buy one.

The only thing that would make me consider buying into the new format(s) is when I finish the basement in our new home. I'm planning on going with a 1080p projector. On a screen that large (~100 inches) there actually is a difference. But I still don't care for the DRM crap that both formats include, so even then it'll be a tough sell for me.

- Roach

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[rearden]

Thats what I get for not paying attention while typing out a response in a rush. A good review edit always helps, but being in the middle of several other task and answering questions hurts ones train of thought and obviously I did not check carefully. Oh well, the point was made and hopefully received with out too much difficulty.

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[DragonWriter]

My educated guess is that they include 720p sets in that figure (720p sets are regularly sold with "HDTV" labelling).

Heck, the 1080i/540p CRT I got a few years back was sold with "HDTV" labelling, and while those will benefit from HD broadcast compared to SDTV's 480i, they won't benefit much from HD discs vs 480p DVDs.

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[Fanboys_Suck_Dick]

Normal DVDs look great on my HDTV so I don't consider it a waste at all.

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[neomunk]

I suggest buying some low-range computer 'terminals' with high-end sound/graphics cards to act as media distributers (aka cable box, whatever format disc player, etc.) and picking up a high end machine to act as a media server (with good or crappy sound/graphics depending on if the server is a terminal too).

I haven't tried it myself yet, but LinuxMCE looked really promising in the videos I watched. After a little investigation, I found that it can be a little huffy about which hardware works seamlessly, but that's not an issue if you have their hardware compatibility list in your hand while buying your components. The demo video I saw on YouTube really looked interesting (I -THINK- that's the video I watched before).

You'd need to (easily) install deCSS yourself, as it doesn't come bundled for legal reasons. Not knowing the state of HD-format decryption, I can't tell you which (if either) format you'll be able to RIP to your new home entertainment nexus, but once you have the content on the computer (by hook or by crook citizen :-D) you now have high-def distribution to every screen you bought a terminal for. They even toss in a bunch of other neat packages, like integrated home-automation (lights dim when you start the movie), home security features (watch your webcam from your cellphone, and talk trash to the person in your house), a cornucopia of control/interface devices...

Heh, I sound like I'm selling the damn thing, but it's free. And remember my caveat, I've not used it myself, I was highly WOWed by the demo video though.

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[SanityInAnarchy]

So buy what looks to be the cheapest -- you can still get an HD-DVD player for under $200, I think.

Then rent movies. Netflix will do either format. You won't be able to rip them to your home media server, but they were rentals anyway.

Disclaimer: I do work in HD DVDs. And while it is perfectly possible to lock you into 10 mins of trailers, when was the last time you saw a DVD do that? The HD DVDs I've seen only ever lock the remote during the studio logo, which takes maybe five seconds -- honestly, you'll spend longer waiting for the player to boot up, and for your disc to spin up. Once the movie starts, it's less intrusive -- the Warner titles, at least, will start the movie immediately, rather than taking you to a menu first, and the menu doesn't take you out of the movie.

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[lena_10326]

Oh you are wrong...HGTV and Food Network are broadcasted in HD...Direct TV now has about 30 HD channels...

That's Direct TV though.. I have Time Warner. There is no DSL option in my area so I'm stuck with cable and I won't pay twice for the same channels (satellite and cable).

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[walt-sjc]

while it is perfectly possible to lock you into 10 mins of trailers, when was the last time you saw a DVD do that?

Most Disney films, such as the latest Pirates for one. That's why I rip to my media server to avoid that shit. If I can't rip, I don't buy. The MPAA can go screw themselves, and take their HD DRM with them.

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[sponglish]

Bit O' anecdotal evidence: I just bought my third DVD player in 14 months. The first two were LG upconverter models (one with Best Buy's Insignia label) that cost about 70 bucks each. Each worked great for a few months, then playback degraded (pixellation, skipping, failing to mount, etc.) until total blackout.

I just got a Samsung model to replace them because I've been happy with their LCD 1080p TV, here's hoping.

One thing though: why don't DVD players come with sleep timers? None of the models I looked at had one, yet having one would protect the units from playing while the viewer is asleep or not in the room. Is it simply planned obsolescence? (I know I know, "Who is John Galt?")

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[Seumas]

I'm not suggesting rebuying anything. I'm suggesting you go with your own preferred format and get the movies you want for it. If the other format wins, then you can buy a player for that (or a dual player) and start choosing your movies on that platform when the time comes. It's not 1980. It's not either/or. Right now, I use bluray because i happen to have a bluray palyer. If HD wins in two years, I can start buying HD content. And I'll still be able to watch my bluray stuff.

I mean, come on -- people are acting like this is rocket science. People are still able to play records, casettes and CDs to this day. Just because CDs are the thing now doesn't prevent you from playing the other formats. BluRay (or HD) won't just disappear no matter what. And even if one wins, chances are they'll just eventually provide playability of both formats in a cheap *player* so you can watch whatever content you own.

I find it absurd that people are worried that if they "pick the wrong one" today, they'll have a stack of useless discs on their shelf in a few years. That is simply not the case. And in the mean time, where are you going to get your HD content for your HD television (which a lot of people ARE moving to)? Primarily, from HD and BluRay.

So relax, enjoy your movies and don't freak out. It's not worth it.

By the way, the attitude isn't flippant. DVD players aren't $400 today. In fact, they weren't $400 for very long at all. That's why I said PICK ONE today and enjoy it. And buy the other when both formats are cheaper. If you're spending $30 on DVD/HD/BluRay discs then you'll have no problem affording $100 for a bluray or HD player. I own bluray right now. When I can get a nice HD player for about $100 (which won't bee too long from now), then I will.

We're not talking about massive investments here.

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[stewbacca]

Your attitudes towards money ARE flippant, because most people don't want to spend money like your scenario describes, because faced with feeding a family, or buying into two over-hyped media systems, most people pick feeding the family. Look, I buy a lot of expensive computer stuff (three Macs, an iPhone, and even an overpriced Airport Extreme router), and it isn't a big deal to me. But I also have a good career and can afford to do so. What I do understand, though, is for MOST people, buying a $400 DVD player that may or may not be obsolete in 2 years is a BIG risk, let alone having to buy TWO to make sure you have the right format. Just a quick online search for Blu-ray players, and I see $400 is the LOWER end for players too.

and if HD wins in two years, I can start buying HD content. And I'll still be able to watch my bluray stuff.

And how exactly will you play your Blu-ray content when your obsolete Blu-ray player breaks? You'll just rebuy all your favorite media in HD format.

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[ColdSam]

Frankly, you're completely missing the point. If you are struggling to feed your family then you should probably not be thinking about buying a $400 HD player at all, let alone two. But that's just my opinion.

The boneheaded article (and summary) is telling people who want HD to sit on the sidelines until the battle is over. Which is almost completely irrational, as Seumas has clearly pointed out. There are many reasons why individuals may rationally choose not to buy a player now: they're still expensive, they aren't easily ripped, you don't care about the higher resolution.... But the irrational fear of obsolescence is not one of them.

I'm not sure why I'm bothering. It's pretty clear you're not reading, let alone understanding the guy's point.

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[Serge_Tomiko]

Personally, I think blu ray movies look much better than most HD content on cable. Only the Discovery Channel really shines, while I'd say the majority of the bluray movies I've rented or purchased are top quality.

Also, no cable company offers 1080p content, although that isn't a huge deal. It's a nice thought though that perhaps in a few years when 72" screens are cheap, my bluray discs will still look great.

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[stewbacca]

I have to wonder who it is that isn't reading. I'm reading the guy's point, but it I'm not agreeing with it. If you want to posit that the reason people aren't buying HD dvd players because they can't defeat the DRM, then you are just showing you are in the small minority of us on slashdot that knows what DRM even is. I, on the other hand, take note OUTSIDE of slashdot, and can say with 100% certainty that the main reason people aren't buying either format yet is because of money. They are too expensive, they don't want to throw their money away into the losing format, and they don't want to have to re-buy their media if they make the wrong choice. History is a bitch.

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[ColdSam]

No need to wonder anymore, it's clearly you who has this ridiculous idea in your head and can't see past it. Should I try again? Okay, I confess I'm a masochist.

First, are you seriously positing that there aren't any consumers who are avoiding HD because of DRM? Perhaps you think those on Slashdot are lying, but we have here many people who have confessed to avoiding it for that very reason. And if you think there aren't millions of consumers who are impacted by DRM (and the difficulty of ripping/copying HD) even if they don't know it by that name, then you are very much mistaken. So there we have it, DRM is one of the many valid reasons to avoid buying an HD player. Go back and read my post and you will see that I didn't say it was the only reason, or even the major reason, just that it is a valid reason. So you're wrong on that one.

Second, you are confusing why people are not buying and whether it is a valid reason. I've already clearly stated that current players are expensive and not everyone can afford to go to HD yet. That is a valid reason (although often greatly exaggerated, by you for example). I have no idea why you keep repeating that as if it were a new revelation. I'm going to count this one against you too, because it shows you're not really following the thread.

Third, there is no doubt that many are not buying because of the FUD over the two formats. Most consumers are sheep and, like yourself, blindly agreeing with reporters looking for a controversial story without giving it a single thought or calculation. But Seumas (among others) has, and his analysis (which wasn't really that complicated) should disabuse any reasonable person of that faulty conclusion. Yet you persist in repeating the same ignorant notions that he has clearly, clearly contradicted, and you have done so without adding any new arguments or data to support your reanalysis. Let's go through them in detail so they are hard for you to overlook:

1) You don't have to buy two $400 players! He's said that at least twice and I've said it once. You buy one now and a cheap $100 one in 5 years or more if your player is not the clear winner in the format war. So it will cost you roughly the price of two HD discs. That's worth waiting for?
2) You won't, won't, won't have to rebuy all your media. Even if your format is the loser your current player will still work at least for 5 years, probably 10 or more and they will be making new ones (of the losing format) for the next 10 years, so you will be able to rebuy for less than $100. Let alone that you will be able to buy cheap, used, but working players for the next 50 years. You can still buy laserdisc players on ebay for $10 to $100, fer chrissakes. History is not your bitch, in this case.
3) Say you sit on the sidelines for 5 years. How many 100s of dollars have you wasted buying standard DVDs when you could have been buying and enjoying HD discs? And, according to your logic, you will then have to rebuy all those DVDs in HD!

Avoid HD if you don't care about the quality and you think the players and discs are too expensive for your budget. You could have made the same argument against going to DVD 10 years ago (and many did). Are they happy with their choice?

However, the dual format concern is a non-issue and you haven't supplied a single shred of evidence to the contrary.

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[stewbacca]

Here's a quick and easy summary of our entire disagreement:

You won't, won't, won't have to rebuy all your media.

But they WILL, WILL, WILL, rebuy all their media (even though they don't, don't, don't have to).

First of all, you are drawing your own conclusions about my posts, so again, I have to wonder who it is that's NOT reading. It is you who is descrediting the main reason people are sitting out the format war, because you want to believe in some higher cause (anti-DRM perhaps?). My posts are clear that MONEY is the main factor people are sitting it out, and for you to dismiss this for lack of evidence is kind of funny. Fear of buying an obsolete player contributes right back to this reason. The cost and fear of buying an obsolete player are far higher on the list of reasons not to buy and HD player right now than being able to rip the media. Do I have any stats to back that up? Uh, well, no (nor do you, oddly enough), because I doubt any such survey exists.

Yet you persist in repeating the same ignorant notions that he has clearly, clearly contradicted

READ: one slashdot geek's anti-DRM agenda jives nicely with another slashdot geeks anti-DRM agenda. Nice.

there is no doubt that many are not buying because of the FUD over the two formats.

You make the common slashdot mistake of throwing the term FUD around incorrectly. Fear-Uncertainty-Doubt is a marketing ploy used by companies to mislead consumers about the competitions' products. The only FUD in this instance would be if the Blu-Ray camp were making untruthful statements about the capabilities of HDDVD (or vice-versa) in order to confuse the consumer. Neither this article nor this thread have anything to do with FUD.

First, are you seriously positing that there aren't any consumers who are avoiding HD because of DRM?

Did I ever say such a thing? What I did say was that the small minority of tech geeks out have very little affect on the market right now. Ask the question, "are you holding out on buying HD because of DRM?" and the most common response you'll get is, "what's DRM?".

Second, you are confusing why people are not buying and whether it is a valid reason.

I'm not claiming your points are not valid reasons, only that they are insignificant reasons. Money matters most. I have challenged the claim that HD DVD players are cheap, and indeed DO run around $400, not the $100 as claimed. I offered realistic scenarios that point out additional costs to the consumer. I point to the long history of people buying and rebuying media and all you can say is, "no they don't, they go on ebay and buy obscure players". While it is true, consumers don't HAVE to rebuy their media, history shows us they DO. Consumers don't HAVE to buy two players, but history shows us they WILL.

This might shock you, but I think consumers holding out is STUPID too. I agree with the notion of pick one now (if you can afford it) and don't worry about the winner. What my post is trying to get through to you, though, is that MOST people don't think this way and buying anything over $100 is a big deal to them.

You claim people held out on DVDs when they most certainly didn't, because there wasn't a major competing format, with the small exception of the short lifespan of DiVX titles. Once DiVX bit the dust, the floodgates opened, further supporting my position that people sit out during format wars. Although this may not be any new "revelation", it doesn't make it any less true. People bought DVD players in droves, and then rebought all their favorite media to show off their new tech. And I thought you said people don't rebuy media?

As for #3, I'm not buying any standard DVDs because I don't want to rebuy them when an HD format finally wins. Thank you for allowing me to repeat this valid argument.

As for the rest of

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[ColdSam]

Wow, it's rare that I give up on someone this quickly, but you are truly a moron. I'll let someone else point out the many obvious (and repeated) idiotic and clueless statements you've made here. Hold on, I'm re-reading your post looking for one thing that is even close to be factually or logically correct...

Ooh, good news! I found something! I'll grant that I used FUD in a non-traditional way. I had started to write out "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" which certainly applies and chose to tighten my post by abbreviating it. My bad, I'll try to be more verbose in the future to avoid confusion.

But the rest of your post is pure and utter nonsense. Are you sure you're even responding in the right thread?

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[stewbacca]

Even had you expanded FUD to fear, uncertainty, and doubt, you'd still be using it incorrectly. This logical fallacy, and your ad hominem attacks lend nothing to your credibility. Now if you'd like to discuss what exactly makes me "truly a moron", "idiotic", "clueless" and not "even close" to being "factually or logically correct", I'm listening.

You can start here for FUD 101: http://linux-blog.org/index.php?/archives/30-What-is-FUD.html

Cheers.

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[ColdSam]

When logic and fact go over the head of the person you're debating what are you left with but ad hominem attacks? Yes, it's a weakness of mine, I should just just keep quiet and let you blunder on through life.

Have the words "fear," "uncertainty," and "doubt" taken on new meanings since I left school? Would you rather I said, "uncertainty, doubt and fear?" Or chosen three different words that mean the same thing. Sheesh, I congratulated you that had found a minor (although insignificant) flaw in my post, and you now go and ruin it by following it up with something stupid like that.

What makes you "truly a moron" is the total absence of worth in your previous post, after having been given 3 or more tries to get it right. I certainly can't spend all day trying to educate you, but I defy you to find even one valid point that you made (other than the FUD) which makes any sense in the context of this thread and diminishes in any way the points that Seumas made and I built upon. I eagerly away what you thing your strongest argument is. Of course, that might require you to understand what the topic is. Hint: it's not about DRM.

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[stewbacca]

I eagerly away what you thing your strongest argument is. Of course, that might require you to understand what the topic is. Hint: it's not about DRM.

Frankly, I have no idea what you want to hear, since you haven't posted anything significant in your last two posts, other than personal and unsubstantiated attacks against me. Now, if you'd like to debate openly by, oh, I don't know, saying what it is precisely that you don't agree with, instead of just calling me names, I'd gladly oblige.

I'll take a stab at your question, though. My strongest argument is that people ARE sitting out the format war because they don't want to get burned by picking the wrong format AGAIN, (just like history has shown). Furthermore, it is unrealistic to think that the Average Joe would find it acceptable to just go out and buy a second player a few years down the road. Nobody wants two players and two different libraries mucking up their entertainment center. There are other issues, some pressing (like a lot of people just don't care about the quality gains or don't have HDTVs, players are too expensive) and some not so important (inability to defeat DRM, creating fair use copies), but the story is the competing formats, plain-and-simple. The tech-centric idea of just buying any and all formats that come out is unrealistic for MOST people.

Now if you could set aside your egocentric tech-centered world-view for one moment, perhaps you could understand that my assertions are based on real-world realities and aren't just made up facts.

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[ColdSam]

Fantastic! So we've boiled it down to your argument being that people SHOULD sit out the format war because they ARE sitting out the format war.

I won't address the next three ignorant or inconsistent comments in your post because the very first one is sufficient to indicate you have no idea what the discussion is about. Although I do have to respond to this:

There are other issues...inability to defeat DRM,... How can you seriously believe that DRM is the reason people are not buying HD?! This is not about DRM! What is it with you slashdotters and your DRM agenda!!!

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[Wdomburg]

At this point I'd venture that the basics are pretty well set. HDMI is the interface, ATSC and QAM are the standards, etc. The latest iteration of the standards for VoD and PPV without leasing a set top box is still up in the air (new version called "tru2way" was just announced) but I'm not sure I would wait for that.

Beyond that, it's all just bells and whistles. New types of backlighting, higher refresh rates, wider color gamuts and so forth. Wait for that and you'll never buy. :)

Mind you I'm only upgrading soon because I expect old models will be on clearance after the new ones announced at CES come out and my current ten year old set is a bit beat up - scan line travelling the scene that's all too noticeable sometimes, busted component inputs - and I already bought an HD DVD player when my regular player went tits up (for $89.99 + 7 free movies, seemed silly to pass up) and an HD DVR (cable company switched to them exclusively, also provides free HD channels with the service).

DVD/HD

[Kenoli]

No compelling reasons to upgrades, compelling reasons not to upgrade.

Sounds familiar. Anyone?

Re:DVD/HD

[DannyO152]

Two incompatible formats. Alleged enhancement of experience if you buy the right equipment*. No compelling reasons to upgrade, compelling reasons (cash) to not upgrade?

Sounds like 1973 and Quadraphonic to me.

* and sit within the 8 square foot diamond.

Re:DVD/HD

[FredFredrickson]

He must be talking about that latest Mac operating system that everybody's upset about. Right? You know.. the one that takes 3 hours to copy a file...

Re:DVD/HD

[Jugalator]

Bah. My compelling reason to upgrade is part having a reliable format for burning HD movies. Another major convenience would be a format for regular backups from modern hard drives. When drives were 60 GB large, it wasn't a big deal, but today you can pretty much add on a zero to that number. "What would one need that much drive space for?" Well, that's besides the topic, but HD and even DVD images are becoming increasingly more common to store for me, and they eat space faster than one may at first believe. Archiving these on fewer discs would of course be a big bonus.

The reasons not to upgrade is mostly disc pricing along with the HD war. It's not as much about the burner pricing. I can actually take the cost of a Blu-ray burner; it's not that bad. But the BD-R discs (and HD-DVD-R ones) are really expensive at the moment, obviously due to them not being produced in large quantities thanks to this format war.

Re:DVD/HD

[random0xff]

Yes. I bought a new 32" TV and it's HD Ready. That should be a reason to look at HD-DVD or Blu-ray. Instead I bought a new DVD player that does upscaling. DVD's look very good, everyone that sees it is very impressed with it. There's no reason to upgrade, there is a back catalog of thousands of DVD's (I bought about 70 of them in 2007), many costing not more then 10 bucks, and they look great.

I will probably buy a console that does HD in 2008. For that choice, the disc media is not important. I will buy the console that has the games I like, at the right price.

Re:DVD/HD

[Anonymous Coward]

Ohh!! Yes, is funny because Windows Vista also like that!

Re:DVD/HD

[Shilaeli]

All I have right now is a 24" 480i 4:3 Sony Wega, which has S-Video as the nicest input. I don't have a home theater system. I don't even have a DVD player other than my PS2. I'm still happy playing my Dreamcast or PS2 and very rarely watching a DVD. Not only am I just not really into movies, but I might as well watch them on my laptop since it will actually look better on its LCD.

I haven't jumped on the DVD or satellite/digital cable bandwagon yet because I'm too cheap to get all the TV and sound upgrades, and then pay the hefty subscription or rental fees just for content. I have basic analog cable basically just for watching football. I'd get DirecTV, but it's like $500 a year at minimum just to get Sunday Ticket. It would be the same price as my analog cable if I could just pay for four months of football, but they make you subscribe for at least a year. All other TV is just painful to watch it's so bad. I'd rather just play on the internet.

The only thing that has me excited right now is the Wii, because it will work just fine on my current TV, which was an awesome TV when I bought it in 2000. Once I can find a Wii, I'll have a system that comes with plenty of free games to start out for only $250 plus tax. And for very few extra bucks, I can play a fuckton of old games on the system legally. It can play all the old games I care about that my Dreamcast can't easily emulate like N64, TG-16, Genesis, and SNES. And it plays Gamecube games.

I couldn't care less about watching crappy prime time TV shows in HDTV, or movies in 1080p. All the old movies I like probably weren't even shot in 1080p to begin with. Hell, my favorite director, Kubrick, shot all his stuff in 4:3.

I think DVD and CD are going to be the last popular tangible formats for music and movies. They are not going to die like cassette tapes and VHS. 10-20 years from now I bet that nothing has replaced the CD. Whenever I buy my CD's I just rip it immediately to mp3 and then huck it in a box, but I don't want that to change. I don't want to download it in a wacky iTunes or Amazon or Radiohead format. I still like having the actual CD even though I don't use it much. HDDVD/BR might replace DVD for new movies, but it will take a long, long time if it ever happens.

Yours truly,

Lower Middle Class American

Why not support both?

[stewbacca]

Here's a novel idea (FTA): "Warner Brothers releases movies for both systems."

I guess Warner Bros. actually gets it and is reaching out to the biggest market possible, whereas the rest are picking sides and supporting their pet formats.

I remember for the longest time certain studios refused to release their movies to DVD because they were trying to push their own, stupid, proprietary systems. They eventualy caved (and I finally got Braveheart on DVD!). I see the same thing happening here.

For the record, from this casual observer's view, Blu-Ray is doing a much better job in brand recognition. Perhaps it is the catchy name, since HD-DVD sounds more like a spec than it does a product?

Re:Why not support both?

[Anonymous Coward]

Part of what makes Blu-Ray popular is the PlayStation 3. How many people bought a PlayStation 2 because it was a game console and DVD player in one package? Consumers generally find the HD-DVD/Blu-Ray split annoying and confusing, and if they can see that the PlayStation 3, the descendant of the console that gave them their first taste of DVD playback, choosing Blu-Ray then the link between best high definition format and Blu-Ray is made in their mind.

Personally, I can't stand either format and have a CD/SACD/DVD changer from Sony from a few years back. I'd hate to think what an equivalent changer would cost now. Oh, and the changer upscales on playback. Way to shoot yourself in the foot, Sony.

Re:Why not support both?

[Wdomburg]

For the record, from this casual observer's view, Blu-Ray is doing a much better job in brand recognition. Perhaps it is the catchy name, since HD-DVD sounds more like a spec than it does a product?

Actually, according to data released by NPD back in September only 20% of their poll respondants were aware of Blu-ray compared to 29% who were aware of HD DVD. And a poll of new HDTV owners conducted by TDG in December indicated 43% expressed interest in owning HD DVD compared to 27% for Blu-ray.

Sony is pushing Blu-ray awareness, though, and the Playstation 3 will submarine the format into a number of living rooms regardless of whether they had discrete interest in it. And it may be too early to tell whether Disney's "Magical Blu-ray Tour" in fall made a noticeable difference in awareness.

Re:Why not support both?

[phobos13013]

Fact is... in todays system where consumers are so numerous and have so much money collectively that many different markets can support many competing brands so a market with only two competitors can easily be supported long-term (though with special deals and brand X-only releases, not to the customers advantage). iPods may be the king of the portable media market, but they are NOT by far the only folks in it. And we are a very long time into that battle nowadays. So supporting both options is not only a good idea, its inevitably the case if neither competitor is willing to give in or collapse.

Re:Why not support both?

[samkass]

For the record, from this casual observer's view, Blu-Ray is doing a much better job in brand recognition. Perhaps it is the catchy name, since HD-DVD sounds more like a spec than it does a product?

I don't know about that, but they're certainly doing way better in sales. In the US it's about 2:1 Blu-Ray to HD DVD, and in Europe it's 3:1. And in rentals it's even more heavily Blu-Ray both in the US and Europe. I suspect Japan goes even further towards Blu-Ray.

In other words, it's only a "stalemate" if you're a journalist who really wants to keep writing about this controversy and generating hits. At this point it's more a matter of when Blu-Ray will win. Microsoft wants to delay it, but at this point it's pretty much inevitable.

Re:Why not support both?

[mikej]

I disagree with you that Blu-Ray is more catchy, though it might not be if DVD wasn't so well-known. It really comes down to a question of how the terms are used. To the average non-tech customer, a "DVD" is the disk and the "DVD Player" is the machine that plays the "DVDs". It's very simple, and very straightforward. Nobody thinks of DVD as a format name anymore, because the acronym as been thoroughly nouned, just like CD has been.

DVD had the advantage of following CD, which got people used to the idea, but no matter how it happened people are totally comfortable with the idea of putting the DVD in the player and watching a movie. Asking them to call a physical disk which looks exactly like their DVDs a "Blu Ray" or a "Ray" or a "BR" or anything else is, frankly, a little awkward. Contrast that with asking people to look at something with all the same physical characteristics of a DVD, that plays movies like a DVD (except in Hi-Def) and call it an HD-DVD. What is it? It's a High-Def DVD, duh. Formats win for reasons like this, and I thing HD-DVD will win in the long run because people will walk into the store wanting a High-Definition DVD player, and pick up HD-DVD.

Re:Why not support both?

[Anonymous Coward]

Woah, woah, woah. BR sounds much more techincal. Let's call these things what they really are. Blue-Ray Media and Blue-Ray Media Players, or, more commonly, BMs, and BM Players. Now who wants to bring home the hot new BM for the family?

Re:Why not support both?

[crayz]

Actually, unless you don't expect one or the other format to win, releasing on both seems unethical. Eventually one of these formats will die, and the people who've bought discs in that format will be left holding the bag

Re:Why not support both?

[stewbacca]

Unethical??? So video game companies shouldn't make PS3, Xbox360, AND PC versions of their games? Could you explain how reaching out to as many customers as possible is unethical?

Re:Why not support both?

[stewbacca]

I wonder if the numbers are skewed in HD-DVD's favor because people talking about "High Definition" DVD players such as Blu-Ray just call it HD. "I wanna go get me one of them new fangled Blu-Ray HD DVD players". See how the name of one format (HD-dvd) can easily be confused and used in place of the other? Do we always use band-aid brand bandaids? I think the HD-DVD people might have thought about that before this war even started.

Re:Why not support both?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a novel idea (FTA): "Warner Brothers releases movies for both systems."
I guess Warner Bros. actually gets it and is reaching out to the biggest market possible, whereas the rest are picking sides and supporting their pet formats.

That's fine for now, but it can't possibly last. Retailers aren't going to stand for having to store and display the same product in two formats. Not to mention they will bear the brunt of customer's irritation when they get confused and buy the wrong version, as well as millions of exchanges and returns. If there are two nearly identical packages with nearly identical disks this will happen a lot, and I mean a lot.

Like so many other products, the decision may end up in Wal Mart's hands when they decide to sell one format but not the other. That, or they need to develop hybrid disks (if not players) immediately.

Re:Why not support both?

[samkass]

Microsoft is one of the major HD DVD backers. The makers of Windows, Word, Money, and a slew of other obvious, non-imaginative, non-trademarkable names. (Is it still true that Windows and Word are not trademarked on their own, and only "Microsoft Windows" and "Microsoft Word" are trademarked?)

Anyway, I think the amazing thing here is that they got something as generic as HD DVD trademarked. And when HD DVD dies in 6-12 months, maybe the DivX folks can subsume the name :)

Not quite the reality i think.

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Generally i think it is true, but there are more people than ever in the bluray and hd-dvd isle at bestbuy. I remember when the blu-ray and Hd-dvd isles were a void of any lifeforms, except myself which is debatable.

I saw lots of people looking and buying bluray films at bestbuy this christmas. HD-DVD was in the same isle, all you had to do is turn around. Not as many folks there. More were looking at Blu-ray.

My father bought a bluray player,
My friends father bought a bluray player.

I own both format players, as do my friends.

It is true that DVD is holding strong, but it in all sense is a dead format in the long run. Blu-ray looks to be the winner technology wise. Movie selection on both formats are quite poor.

Re:Not quite the reality i think.

[markdavis]

Your prediction is far too premature.

HD-DVD still has incredible backing. And the largest retailer in the world, Walmart, recently announced they will only carry HD-DVD in their stores. This "fight" is not ending anytime soon. We need cheap, dual-format players.

Re:Not quite the reality i think.

[lena_10326]

I always think it's the name that sells. People like "blu" which translates to "blue". Colorful, gimmicky. A name is everything. Just as things starting with V (vhs) always sound cooler than B (betamax).

But wait... Blu-ray starts with B, oh yea. I guess color imagery trumps typography.

Re:Not quite the reality i think.

[Anonymous Coward]

"It is true that DVD is holding strong, but it in all sense is a dead format in the long run."

You can still buy VHS players for dirt cheap anywhere. It will be the same way with DVD in ten years. Try to find a Beta or Laserdisc player at your local home entertainment store.

Re:Not quite the reality i think.

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

yeah but are they releasing many films on VHS these days?

Re:Not quite the reality i think.

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

I said bluray appears to be the winner technology wise. My reasoning is because of the capacity of a bluray disk vs hddvd. Bluray wins with 50GB versus HD-DVD's 30GB disc.

I know they said they got hd-dvd to 51 Gigs, but from what i understand (and i could be wrong) is that they're not sure it will make it out in the market due to capability problems. It was more of a PR stunt than a reality.

Re:Not quite the reality i think.

[bilbravo]

"And the largest retailer in the world, Walmart, recently announced they will only carry HD-DVD in their stores."

Source for that claim?

Re:Not quite the reality i think.

[Nephilium]

Where? The only VHS players I can find now are the combo DVD/VHS players... that start at about $100...

Nephilium

Re:Not quite the reality i think.

[Troed]

Since Blu-ray consistenly outsells HD DVD by about 2:1 I'd say it's pretty much decided.

Nielsen/VideoScan Numbers ending December 16th

WE: BD-61% HDD-39% YTD: BD-65% HDD-35% SI: BD-62% HDD-38%

Nielsen/VideoScan Numbers ending December 9th

WE: BD-76% HDD-24% YTD: BD-65% HDD-35% SI: BD-62% HDD-38%

Nielsen/VideoScan Numbers ending December 2nd

WE: BD-58% HDD-42% YTD: BD-65% HDD-35% SI: BD-62% HDD-38%

Nielsen/VideoScan Numbers ending November 25th

WE: BD-72% HDD-28% YTD: BD-65% HDD-35% SI: BD-62% HDD-38%

Nielsen/VideoScan Numbers ending November 18th

WE: BD-66% HDD-34% YTD: BD-65% HDD-35% SI: BD-61% HDD-39%

Nielsen/VideoScan Numbers ending November 11th

WE: BD-65% HDD-35% YTD: BD-65% HDD-35% SI: BD-61% HDD-39%

Nielsen/VideoScan Numbers ending November 4th

WE: BD-71% HDD-29% YTD: BD-64% HDD-36% SI: BD-61% HDD-39%

Nielsen/VideoScan Numbers ending October 28th

WE: BD-55% HDD-45% YTD: BD-64% HDD-36% SI: BD-60% HDD-40%

Nielsen/VideoScan Numbers ending October 21th

WE: BD-51% HDD-49% YTD: BD-65% HDD-35% SI: BD-61% HDD-39%

Nielsen/VideoScan Numbers ending October 14th

WE: BD-71% HDD-29% YTD: BD-66% HDD-34% SI: BD-61% HDD-39%

Nielsen/VideoScan Numbers ending October 7th

WE: BD-68% HDD-32% YTD: BD-66% HDD-34% SI: BD-61% HDD-39%

Source: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=8608

Re:Not quite the reality i think.

[nahdude812]

On a superficial level I'd lean toward HD-DVD. I already know DVD's, and I already know HD. This is just a coupling of concepts with which I am already familiar. Bluray though, what is that, what does it do? Is my stuff compatible with it? Superficially speaking, HD-DVD sounds more comfortable, and there is psychologically less chance that I'll end up with an expensive toy that is not compatible with the rest of my system.

Re:Not quite the reality i think.

[markdavis]

http://news.digitaltrends.com/talkback184.html

I heard it from several places. Of course, this may not be reliable. A quick search on Walmart's site and they still sell Bluray players and discs.

Re:Not quite the reality i think.

[bilbravo]

Thanks for the link.

After reading it though, I noticed that 1) it is from April 2007 and 2) those players didn't come through. On a related note, Wal-Mart did have a $98 HD-DVD player sale in November on the Toshiba A2 player. So I guess the sub $200 part was correct, although it was a sale (and possibly an inventory clearance of an older model, I don't think they make the A2 any longer).

Re:Not quite the reality i think.

[Anonymous Coward]

After reading it though, I noticed that 1) it is from April 2007 and 2) those players didn't come through.

Really? That looks like it's sub-$200 and available today to me.

Re:Not quite the reality i think.

[bilbravo]

Well, I wish that I knew who I was replying to, but... touche.

Re:Not quite the reality i think.

[edwdig]

I said bluray appears to be the winner technology wise. My reasoning is because of the capacity of a bluray disk vs hddvd. Bluray wins with 50GB versus HD-DVD's 30GB disc.

BluRay wins from a pure technology spandpoint easily. There's no question on that, even from the HD-DVD camp.

The entire point of this war is BluRay is better technology, but HD-DVD is cheaper to make. Not so much on the consumer end, but on the manufacturing end. BluRay requires all new manufacturing equipment, whereas HD-DVD just requires some fairly cheap upgrades to the existing DVD manufacturing equipment.

I can testify to that....

[lena_10326]

I have the 50" Panasonic plasma--bought it last year. There's no impetus for me to get an HD player because when I sit 15 feet away, standard DVD quality is good enough. Sure, I'd like better, I just don't want to pay a ton for it. I appear to fit inside the bell curve. It's comfy in here...

So, I wait. Wait and see.

Re:I can testify to that....

[Anonymous Coward]

At my age visual sight is failing so it doesn't matter and wouldn't justify the investament, lost my hearing some place in the 60's early 70's. My advice set back crank up the 8 track player to 10 and smile and wave, just smile and wave.....................

Re:I can testify to that....

[Anonymous Coward]

I appear to fit inside the bell curve. It's comfy in here... Actually, we all do... I'ts just the distance to the mean that differs. :)

Re:I can testify to that....

[Avatar8]

Ditto.

I have a 3 year old 50" DLP TV. Purchased Verizon FiOS service early this year. While I can easily see and enjoy the differences between the HD content, DVD content and standard TV broadcasts, I have no inclination to upgrade to HD or Blu-ray.

1) I know my 720 TV won't deliver the minute differences. I don't plan to upgrade anytime soon, though, because it exceeds current broadcast capabilities and still looks amazing, especially live hockey and football.
2) I've seen the demos of a standard DVD and HD/Blu-ray on the latest models of TVs; I could barely tell the difference. Definitely not $200-400 worth of upgrade for hardware and then purchasing new movies and re-purchasing movies I really like in HD/Blu-ray.
3) Live and recorded HD content from cable providers (at least Verizon) is currently quite sufficient and will continue to grow. We may not see that standard TV broadcast cutoff in a few years, but eventually, all broadcast content will be HD.
4) Choosing a format when two "standards" are competing is a crap shoot. I cannot afford to buy both or the dual nor do I wish to re-purchase movies. When a third, better format emerges or the two competitors realize their futility and missed profits and combine, I'll upgrade when it is cost effective and convenient.

I'll sit and watch with the majority on this one, too.

BTW, 6-8 feet is the optimal viewing distance for 50". :-)

Re:I can testify to that....

[lena_10326]

BTW, 6-8 feet is the optimal viewing distance for 50". :-)

At 6-8 feet I can see banding on dark scenes such as panning in space movies, but further away it all blurs together. In my living room there's only two wall options for TV placement and the other option would introduce a lot of window glare and force me to sit and watch from the side.

I did it by accident

[DoofusOfDeath]

I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but...

I needed to do Linux development on a Cell processor, so I picked up a PS/3 and a 24" LCD monitor. At the time I thought that I needed an HDCP-compatible monitor in order to use the PS/3 in high-res mode. (I didn't realize that you only need a HDCP-enabled monitor if you want to watch Blue-Ray movies at high-res.)

So I accidentally joined the small group of people with a high-def setup. Oops.

Re:I did it by accident

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux you say? Please, do tell more!

Re:I did it by accident

[DoofusOfDeath]

There's no one good website for it. Google is your friend on this one.

DVD vs HD quality

[putaro]

We just bought a 42" LCD HDTV (1080P). Standard DVD's look damn good on it. I would believe that HD sources will look even better but I'm not willing to shell out for one of these players to experiment. Probably I will be downloading some HD content to see how they look vs the DVD's. Like you, though, I don't see any point in buying a player until either I can buy a dual-format player for a reasonable price or one of the formats is a clear winner.

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[walt-sjc]

Agree on the quality of standard DVD's with a good HD set and player... But there is another issue too. I won't buy an HD player until I can be sure I can make media backups 100% of the time like I can with standard DVD's. THAT, more than anything else, is what is holding me back.

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[iainl]

Do you have a PS3, XBox 360 or PC you could hook up to your telly? Connecting my PC to play back 1080p trailers from the Quicktime site was one of the first things I did with my HDTV, and quickly convinced me there was plenty of quality over and above upscaled DVD to be had.

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[gEvil (beta)]

If you want to see what HD sources look like, try hooking a UHF antenna up to the set. Sure it's "only" 1080i (or 720p), but the clarity will stun you. It's easily the cheapest/easiest way to explore HD material, and yet hardly anyone ever thinks of doing it.

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[MBGMorden]

Due note though that DTV signals have a lower range than standard analog signals did. While I got pickup a decent/watchable analog signal at my rural residence (roughly 45-50 miles from the nearest broadcasting city), my digital tuner can't pickup a thing. I like most people out this far though have simply shifted to satellite television. Still haven't upgraded to satellite HD yet though.

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[jedidiah]

As far as HD trailers go...

Some impress. Some don't. This is similar to how the quality of SD DVDs varies wildly.

The potential of a format may or may not be exploited by a particular studio or title.

Anyone interested in HD would be well advised to experience it for themselves as much as they can before they go off spending money.

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[h4rm0ny]

Seconded. I want to be able to stream all of my movies from my home server on demand, not fiddle around with discs that can be damaged. But a big point with the DRM is that if one of the formats didn't have it, that format would suddenly become safe to invest in. It wouldn't be ideal to have to re-burn all of my HD discs if the format went under and everyone used Blueray, but I (a) wouldn't need to as I could play them from the file and (b) would at least be able to without as much cost as replacing them if I so chose.

Get rid of the DRM and you're not taking a big risk in buying that media.

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[hedwards]

I live in Seattle, according to antennaweb.org I have 8 digital stations available with just a medium multi directional antenna. And an additional 4 if I want to bother with a specialty antenna. I barely get any digital signal at all in the basement, and I'm less than 5 miles away from 7 stations.

Cable sucks, so satellite it is, the thing to keep in mind though is that HD through either cable or satellite is unlikely to be as good as the broadcasts. Of course, if you're that far away from a broadcast, satellite is the only option.

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[cymen]

What kind of antenna do you have? The house we brought came with an old tower with thankfully a new antenna mounted at the top. We're 40-45 miles from the broadcasters and the quality is great using Air2PC ATSC tuner cards which I'm fairly certain are not the newest generation of tuners. So you should look into upgrading your antenna. There are a few glitches during storms (digital degrades much worse than analog in that regard) but as those are rare and digital looks about 1000x better than analog at 45 miles...

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[drsquare]

That's a great idea, if not for the lack of over the air HD broadcasts.

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[SuperQ]

You'll be disappointed to know that the satellite dish won't work in your basement either.

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[lluBdeR]

I don't know if it's the same in the states, but in Canada cable HD is superior to satellite HD. They're limited by the amount of bandwidth they can send through their birds so whenever they add new HD channels they have to step on the ones already there a little bit harder (ie. rencode them at a lower bitrate). Bonus points if you can find one that actually properly retains the metadata for the AC3 stream.

Of course, this doesn't really matter as a disgusting number of people consider HD to be that cheap-ass 1366x768 LCD they bought at Walmart. It's also interesting to see the number of people working in other outlets (ie. The Source, formerly RadioShack in Canada) who merely reference the sticker that says "HD Ready" when I point out that 1366x768 isn't an ATSC resolution.

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[gallwapa]

I'm from Puyallup. We have Comcast, and my new Samsung 5075s (50" DLP) picks up KOMO, KING, KONG, CBS, Q2, CW, and FOX all in HD thanks to QAM. No antenna needed. :)

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[whmac33]

I think the lower range is only because many stations are broadcasting their digital signal with lower wattage. Once they up their power I would think you'll get the channels.

In my experience, digital can lock on to a signal better than analog. But with digital it's all or nothing. With analog you can get a snowy picture if your on the fringe.

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[rekoil]

IF you have a 1080p set that does proper deinterlacing (not all do, some just use one "half" of the interlaced frames and scale them 2x vertically), there is no difference between 1080i and p. 1080i delivers a frame consisting of half the signal (odd numbered lines, then even) every 60th of a second, giving you a full 1080 frame every 1/30th of a second. 1080p delivers - guess what? a full 1080p frame every 1/30th of a second. What's the difference again?

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[ehrichweiss]

You don't think they have to do the exact same with cable!?!?! Well you're wrong.

The problem with cable is akin to the same problem you see with satellite except worse since you can't add new cables to send the additional signals with. With cable you also have to deal with cable internet and as you add more bandwidth to it due to consumer demand, you will find the bandwidth for HD channels decreases. So you either get blazingly fast net access, or HD but you can't cram both into the bandwidth available on a single cable. Since satellite doesn't really have the same internet issues, all they really have to do is add another bird and the consumer just has to tack on an extra dish or LNB, but cable would require an entirely new infrastructure to be built for you to convert all of the analog channels to HD and provide a decent internet experience.

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[Anonymous Coward]

1366X768 is the 720p resolution with overscan. I asked a Samsung rep why they overscan, but I either cant remember what he said or he forgot to answer after he finished what he was talking about (He was in the middle of explaining something when I asked).

Anyone know why tv's use an overscan instead of actual screen res?

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[ehrichweiss]

"Regular" TVs use overscan because they have to fit other parts of the signal(sync, etc.) near the beginning/end of the frame/field. HDTV, not so sure about since it's digital.

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[Anonymous Coward]

There is also the little detail that high-def is meaningless on conventional sized screens at normal viewing distances. The human eye has only so much resolution, you know.

So I'm not even interested in "up-conversion" on a DVD player.

And I now have a lot invested in my DVD library, so I don't WANT to change to a new format.

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[MMC Monster]

Agree. I've had a few discs already broken by my kids. After that I copied every DVD in my library that they would be interested in.

Now I'm planning on having a computer system hooked up to my 1080p TV. Why should I bother hooking in another video player? Especially since I'm trying to phase out the TIVO, VCR and DVD at this point.

My friends are also wondering why I haven't jumped on the Hi-def bandwagon. They're waiting to see which way I jump, since they will likely follow my lead. (I was a early adopter in DVDs and got burnt on the Sony Minidisc format.) I told them I'm waiting for one format to win the war. Why buy hundreds of dollars in media that may not have an available player in ten years?

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[0xdeadbeef]

Don't trust Comcast, they'll take those channels away if they think it'll get them more digital box subscriptions. Now the only true HD channels I get are PBS stations.

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[hedwards]

We had comcast, but they couldn't even get basic cable right, or pretend that they cared. The internet service was out as often as it worked, and they were charging an additional $10 or so a month for doing business with them.

There's a reason why you see so many satellite dishes attached to houses in my neighborhood. If you're getting good service from comcast, you should consider yourself quite lucky.

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[mfnickster]

There is also the little detail that high-def is meaningless on conventional sized screens at normal viewing distances. The human eye has only so much resolution, you know.

Sure, but if I see something in the picture that catches my interest, and I hit pause and move closer to the screen, I want to see more detail - not less, not the same amount.

And yes, you pr0n-addled plebes, there are some things worth examining up close even in non-adult movies!

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[Bombula]

I haven't seen a side-by-side of regular DVD vs HD-DVD or Blu-Ray yet, but I HAVE seen Star Wars on HD TV, and compared to the regular DVD the image quality difference is night and day. Mind you, this was on my uncle's 60" Panasonic HD plasma TV, so quality differences might be more apparent than on a smaller screen. I was really surprised at the difference myself, as I'd heard the usual "most people can't tell the difference" rhetoric. It was pretty obvious to me. Now maybe the HD broadcast was better than an HD DVD or Blu Ray recording would be, I don't know. And maybe it was just because it was a high definition remastering of Star Wars. But it was by far the best image I've ever seen outside of a movie theater.

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[swv3752]

I have a PS3 and a 37" LCD (1080i). DVDs vary, depending on the quality of the mastering of the DVD. Blu-ray still looks better than the best DVD.

The best DVD looks at least as good as digital broadcast TV though.

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[blackest_k]

Since satellite doesn't really have the same internet issues, all they really have to do is add another bird and the consumer just has to tack on an extra dish or LNB, but cable would require an entirely new infrastructure to be built for you to convert all of the analog channels to HD and provide a decent internet experience. Satellites tend to be co located in little constellations. In plain English several satellites appear to be at the same point in the sky, the consumer generally needs to do nothing except possibly tune in new transponders. It also means your unlikely to lose your complete package if a transponder goes down.

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[walt-sjc]

With digital, it is all or nothing, BUT that all or nothing can toggle every few seconds resulting in screen freeze, black screen, etc. If you are watching the superbowl, I would rather take some snow over a bad digital signal any day. And I have had that problem. At least the audio is always clear and doesn't cut out with analog!

All our local stations are digital with network HD content (local is never HD) EXCEPT the local FOX station which is waiting until the LAST DAY before they switch. Obnoxious.

I have a nice 1080p set, but the compression artifacts on every HD station are aweful.

We have Time Warner cable and there is NO WAY IN HELL I would ever use them. So it's the lesser evil, DirecTV. I won't bother with HD on them until they support the HD Tivo for all their content however (Which means that Tivo needs to come out with an MPEG4 version.) Not sure how bad the compression artifact problem is with sat HD...

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[gallwapa]

I do consider myself lucky. I wish there were alternatives but luckily comcast has treated me very well. I wish they had lower prices though. $45/mo internet +45/mo "Basic" tv (not digital cable), +fees = $100/mo. Killer, considering I dont need 99.999999999999999999% of their content (e-mail, mcafee subscription, all of the really crappy channels, etc. Only reason we have cable is so my wife can watch CMT and Lifetime)

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[fyngyrz]

I really enjoy movies, and my version of "sitting out" the hi-def war was simply to ensure I could play both formats. I also game quite a bit, so $120 invested in the 1080i capable XBox 360 HiDef player drive and the built-in 1080p Blueray capability of the PS3 were perfect to bring high resolution playback into the house. We have a 204-inch 1080p projection system with optimally sited seating, so we see all the detail there is.

I'm really glad we didn't wait; hidef content on a big screen really looks a lot better - you're going from about 700 horizontally to 1920, and 480 vertically to 1080... of *course* it looks better. Aside from the disk formats, another source of hi-def is satellite, which has a surprising number of channels available in hi-def (1080i at the moment.) I particularly enjoy hi-def flyover videos of europe, science shows on Discovery, and so on. Even the news is better in HD, any video they shoot to support a story carries six times the detail of standard video, it's like someone finally cleaned the camera lens.

The line in TFS that says that standard DVD players can convert standard DVDs to "near high definition" is a complete line of nonsense. With 1/6th the information in each full frame, all you get are interpolated pixels for smooth areas, and guessed pixels for areas with edges, and the latter only if you have a *very* sophisticated upscaler. Nothing substitutes for real data; if you want to compare what you get, take a 1920x1080 image, scale it down to 853x480, then upscale the small version - using the best method you can find - back to 1920x1080, then compare with the original. *That* is what you get with a DVD upscaling system. 1/6th the original detail - and there is no way around it.

However, your DVD collection is just as good it ever was. Getting into HD in no way compromises your investment in DVDs. We watch DVDs all the time here, and still enjoy them. It's just that we get new movies in either HD format, that's all. Sometimes — Blade Runner, for instance — it is worth it to replace the DVD with a hi-def version, but to be honest, most movies don't deserve that kind of treatment.

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[Buran]

Your TV picks up large gorillas?

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[fyngyrz]

1080p delivers - guess what? a full 1080p frame every 1/30th of a second.

No. 1080p delivers a full 1080 line frame, non-interlaced, every 1/60th of a second.

The main issue right now is that there aren't very many 60 fps sources. The PS3 can generate true 1080p during gameplay, that's one - but movies shot on film are typically 24 fps, converted to 30 fps using a technique called 3:2 pulldown, so a 1080p display keeps the same image up for (at least) two complete frames, resulting in an effective 30 fps non-interlaced display.

Actual 1080i puts up 1/2 the lines (a "field") in 1/60th of a second, then the other half during the next 1/60th of a second. If it is the native format, as the fields are actually recorded at different times, the usual time-caused artifacts can occur, just as they can with standard television. This is generally not the case with movies, because as I mentioned above, they don't contain information above 30 fps; the odd and even fields for film conversions for both DVD and HD formats are taken from the same image slice in time unless a technical error was made during the conversion, which isn't likely (but it happens - the DVD of "Outland", a Sean Connery film, was made with this error and I have a copy — damn thing is painful to watch.)

As the technology matures, we'll begin to see 1080p source material on disk, but it'll be a slow process.

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[PixieDust]

While watching "The Mummy" on my HD-DVD player, and 1080p 42" HP MediaSmart Television (don't ask), I noticed Brendan Frazier has the cutest little bump on the right side of his nose.

Never noticed that before.

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[Nikker]

I think the threshold the newer HDTV's have when it comes to SDTV VS DVD is big enough to make people happy with it. I was recently shopping for a HDTV purchase and at the stores most of the time the signal playing on the TV's was about 720p or upscaled DVD. We got the guy to play some SD content, wow it makes a huge difference, it's like watching YouTube full screen 1600x1200. And guess what most of the content that still exists is SD content. So these people are watching this crap when a half decent DVD player at Walmart comes along it looks night and day difference to what they watch most of the day anyway. Now your going to convince them to pay even more to watch the odd 1080p movie and still watch their daily TV stretched to crap? Ya right. I was lucky enough to do a bit more research and got a TV that has a decent upscaling processor so I don't get as much blockyness as many of the other sets I saw that day. Sure 1080p looks really nice on pretty much any TV that supports it but when you can only get to see that quality once in a very long while who's gonna care? Not many really. When broadcast is mostly up to 720p/1080i then maybe people will shell out that little bit extra until then I don't see the big deal.

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[mpe]

I live in Seattle, according to antennaweb.org I have 8 digital stations available with just a medium multi directional antenna. And an additional 4 if I want to bother with a specialty antenna. I barely get any digital signal at all in the basement, and I'm less than 5 miles away from 7 stations.

You are lacking signal strength in what is probably the most well shielded part of your house... Have you tried the old fashioned low tech solution? i.e. put the antenna where you have the highest signal strength (generally on top of the roof) and run cable(s) to your receiver(s).

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[Afrosheen]

AnyDVD has an HD edition that rips HD-DVDs and Blu-ray discs. So your point is moot and has been since its release. Of course you'll need the obligatory dual-format LG drive in your PC and an insane amount of storage per disc, but these are just details. BTW you know making backups of DVDs is prohibited by law in the US, and protection is getting tougher (Pirates 3 proves this).

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[gallwapa]

:) KING owns KONG

And yes ;)

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[j-turkey]

Agree on the quality of standard DVD's with a good HD set and player... But there is another issue too. I won't buy an HD player until I can be sure I can make media backups 100% of the time like I can with standard DVD's. THAT, more than anything else, is what is holding me back.

I've been disappointed with upscanned DVD's. Readers can't magically produce data (resolution) where it didn't exist. The upconverting only applies to the output signal. There is no comparison between watching native HD media (in 1920x1080) and watching 720x480 DVD's, the former just looks worlds better.

I think that the amount of HD DVD/Blu Ray rips currently available on the torrent sites speaks volumes for the ability to back up the new formats. There is even commercial software that will back your movies up. Check out AnyDVD HD. There is free stuff available on the Doom9 forums, but AnyDVD appears to be seamless.

The next issue is storage space. A pure rip of the new formats yields anywhere from 20-45 GB on your hard drive. You can recompress w/ H.264 down to the size of a DVD5 or DVD9, but these tend to experience at least some color banding on gradients, especially with DVD5's. In any case, backups are still do-able with the current technology. The LG combo BR/HD reader has popped up for as little as $225. Still expensive for a reader, but this has been steadily coming down in price. You'll also need a good video card with full hardware H.264/HD support. Modern PCIe ATI cards are supposed to be the best, and I've had mixed results with a newer nVidia card.

With regards to DRM...in my lifetime, I cannot to think of a single example where any copy protection/DRM scheme has completely succeeded. I would bank on the trend continuing. AACS was supposed to be unbreakable. With its end-to-end hardware protection along with OS support, many believed that AACS would neither be broken nor circumvented. It didn't take long for this belief to be proven wrong.

Since this is Slashdot, I suppose that a lame disclaimer is in order. I have neither admitted to nor condoned any illegal activity on this public forum. Furthermore (for those who are really looking for a really stupid and pointless argument) there is no information presented here to indicate that myself or the parent resides in a country where US copyright policy applies.

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[node 3]

you're going from about 700 horizontally to 1920, and 480 vertically to 1080 Actually, you're going from 480p to 1080i, which is really somewhere in between going from 480 -> 540 and 480 -> 1080 (better than the first, but not as good as the second).

HD is definitely better than SD (assuming sufficient encoding quality, which is not always the case with cable HD signals, but should be with Blu-ray and HD-DVD movies), but the difference isn't great enough to offset the increased cost and hassle most consumers would face.

Personally, I hope to sit out the Blu-ray/HD-DVD war altogether, and instead opt for non-physical media (downloads).

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[DragonWriter]

No. 1080p delivers a full 1080 line frame, non-interlaced, every 1/60th of a second.

No. 1080p delivers a full 1080-line frame, non-interlaced, at some specified refresh rate, which can be 24, 25, or 30 Hz (the broadcast 1080p modes) or 60 (the highest mode supported for BD and HD-DVD playback.)

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[marcomarrero]

Don't forget to ask if their hi-def TV is far, far away from them. You have to be less than 10 feet away to really notice 1080p. I always joke that most people still believe TV's are radioactive, my parents always complained "you're too close, you'll get blind!".

Also, most people are simply unaware, the human brain is amazing reconstructing visual information. For example, I know someone who only realized how much detailed is HDTV when switching several times ESPN between lo-def and hi-def. Especially being able to read names and numbers on uniforms, not just being aware you know them.

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[Anonymous Coward]

Blu-Ray and HD-DVD will actually look better than HD broadcasts from cable/satellite providers. The "most people can't tell the difference" rhetoric can be entirely translated into most people's TVs don't allow them to see a difference, because the difference is substantial when you have a large HD display.

That said, regular DVDs don't look all that bad when you up-convert from 480i to one of the HD resolutions. Especially with old movies where the source material isn't that much higher in quality than a DVD. And when you consider all the nice things about DVDs, like the player booting in under a minute (our Blu-Ray player takes almost 2 minutes until it's ready to play a movie), being able to convert it to play on an iPod, the lower cost and general availability of all titles, the HD formats haven't really offered a truly compelling reason to switch.

Disclaimer: I lucked into a free Blu-Ray player, so I only own 2 movies and don't plan on buying any more than that any time soon.

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[fyngyrz]

We're talking about equivalent capabilities here. Of course it can deliver less frame changes than the maximum. It can even deliver the same frame all night and day for a real-world refresh rate of one frame per 24 hours - or one frame per year, regardless of the various official refresh rates. The point is it can deliver 60 fps max, and 1080i cannot - 1080i can deliver 30 fps max. They can both deliver less than the max, either by ratcheting down to a lower spec'd refresh rate or simply not changing display data for some arbitrary amount of time. The GP was trying to say that 30 fps 1080i capability == 1080p capability, which is nonsense.

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[hedwards]

Thanks, I actually gave it another go. I lifted the antenna about three feet and pointed it mostly west. Most likely I was estimating the direction incorrectly. Turns out that the tuner includes a signal strength indicator, which should help me avoid this next time. Digital doesn't seem to be as bad as the old analog was in terms of tuning, either you've got signal or not. And the cell phone style signal strength indicator makes things a bit easier. From what I can tell, the signal is somewhat less susceptible to interference from people walking around in the room than the older analog receivers were.

You are correct though, part of why I gave up on trying it last time was that I was expecting it to be nigh impossible to get a proper signal. I now get about 10 stations including PBS in HD.

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[Jeremy Erwin]

HDTV was designed to fill more of the field of view than standard definition television. That's why there are so many pixels.

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[Anonymous Coward]

C'mon, downloading HD content? Admit it, you're pulling legs here. Just go down and rent a movie for cryin out loud, it'll cost ya $5. If you can afford a 42 inch LCD that shouldn't be an issue. I can't imagine you downloading 40GB of video just to prove a point to yourself, that's just a waste of time. If the content is compressed for downloading, then you are fucking up your own experiment.

It's ok, we understand. You just threw that in there for the extra karma that your supposed "renegade" self will harvest for seemingly sticking it to the man. (Which appears to have worked.) Don't have a player? Take the rented movie to the local video shop and see it for yourself. Seriously, wtf?

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[Lost Engineer]

The difference between DVD and HD-DVD is pretty clear to me on a standard 42" screen at what I consider a reasonable viewing distance. And this TV is not even 1080p capable. I agree that it's as much better than DVD as DVD is than VHS, but you can see it.

Sometime try flipping between a movie on HBO and HD-HBO. Easy to tell. I think the problem people have is that it doesn't contribute immensely to the viewing experience. Which is to say there's enough definition on a standard DVD that you don't miss anything you would've seen in the theater.

Also, having a nice screen makes a bigger difference in overall experience than whether or not you have HD-DVD. I understand why people are sitting out the format war, but I'm pretty convinced HD discs will catch on.

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[NateTech]

Many cable companies are sending local channels in HD via QAM in the clear also.

If you have a QAM tuner in your HDTV (something to look for, many do NOT have it) and cable, try hooking the cable direct to the RF input on the TV instead of through the switchbox (if you don't have their "HD package").

You might be surprised. You won't get everything, but often you get your locals in HD on alternate channel numbers. You can flip back and forth and compare, which is pretty fun to do.

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[mjpaci]

the human brain is amazing reconstructing visual information

Ain't that the truth. Remember back in the early 90's when monitors went from 'basketball shaped glass' to flat glass? The initial few hours were weird until your brain adjusted to the flat glass.

Not the same thing as the parent, but I needed to say this.

-Mike

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[Cowclops]

You have the space to sit 34 feet away from your 204" screen?

Or do your guests leave with vertigo?

No offense, but sometimes I see people building huge home theater systems and then they put a single recliner way too close and sit and watch movies by themselves. Just because a projector allows you to build a screen thats (almost) arbitrarily large doesn't mean bigger is always better.

In reality, screens bigger than 60 inches or so are for allowing you to put more seating farther away. If you regularly have 30 people over to watch movies, a screen that big makes sense. But otherwise... eh.

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[Cowclops]

People make this mistake all the time. DVDs are "480i" in exactly the same way that HD-DVD and whatnot is "1080i". If you want to compare apples to apples, they're either both interlaced or both progressive depending on how you look at it. The trick is that both formats store movies at 480p24 or 1080p24, and then add 3:2 pulldown at playback to make 480i60 or 1080i60. Since this conversion is lossless (its just a matter of repeating fields to make the right frame rate), you can take that 480/1080i signal and convert it back to 1080p60 or 1080p24 or whatever. It works the same no matter what resolution you're starting with.

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[GWBasic]

Agree on the quality of standard DVD's with a good HD set and player... But there is another issue too. I won't buy an HD player until I can be sure I can make media backups 100% of the time like I can with standard DVD's. THAT, more than anything else, is what is holding me back.

...And with things like Netflix working over an internet connection, and Vudu, and rumors of iTunes movie rentals, by the time that we'll be able to do that with HD-DVD or BluRay, we'll already be renting HD movies over the internet.

I frankly think that the only people who spend any REAL money on HD-DVD or BluRay are people who like looking at large shelves of movies. I recently visited a friend of mine who must have about 4-500 DVDs. He has about 20 HD-DVDs and 30 BluRay disks, and doesn't understand why it's not catching on. The general public just doesn't buy lots of movies, and BluRay / HD-DVD are marketed with the assumption that people will buy bookshelf's full of them.

At least with internet movie rentals, there's no real risk of having shelves of worthless plastic.

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[fyngyrz]

No, it doesn't. That's because when 480i (standard video) is recorded, the odd and even fields are taken at 1/30th of a second intervals, meaning that for motion, the fields become out of register. A progressive data source - such as a true progressive HD camera - takes the entire field at once, eliminating interlace time errors. Quite different.

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[pixelite]

You have no understanding of how cable tv works, let alone digital cable.
Cable's "bandwith" consists of the frequencies between 5Mhz and 1000Mhz. A single analog channel consumes 6Mhz of that spectrum, while a digital channel consumes 1/10th of that( HD 1/6th of that); which is why the cable operator i work for has been transitioning many of their analog channels to digital. Everytime they relocate an analog channel to digital, they can put ten digital channels in its place.

As far as internet bandwith undermining the bandwith of digital cable, that's not possible since they do not overlap. Cable internet has its own 6Mhz slice of that bandwith. If anything there may be a problem with your installation (house wiring), equipment (faulty router or modem), system plant or a combination therof. The frequencies that the internet operate on are in the same high end range as digital cable, so if you have problems with one, you could experience it with the other, but not necessarily.

In effect, the cable companies do not need to redo their infrastructure (plant), but instead need to move more analog to digital in order to increase their bandwith.

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[ehrichweiss]

That's funny, my experience and every other thing I've read in the industry states the exact opposite of your assertion above. Cox cable was hoping to increase their bandwidth enough a while back to add 50 new channels by the end of 2007, so why is it that they needed extra capacity if your assertion were true?

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[pixelite]

>>Cox cable was hoping to increase their bandwidth enough a while back to add 50 new channels by the end of 2007,

By moving analog channels to digital as i mentioned...

>>so why is it that they needed extra capacity if your assertion were true?

perhaps they have not moved enough channels to digital to free up enough bandwith for the new channels.

also were the new channels they promised digital or HD, if they promised 50 HD channels they need to clear up
more anolog channels to free up the bandwith...

also cablelabs is working on channel bonding for next gen internet(docsis 3.0) which would use the banding of four 6Mhz channels
combined to provide increased throughput, mostly as an answer to FiOS. And for a cable operator to make use of DOCSIS 3.0, they would need
the space of four analog channels to use it.

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[ResidntGeek]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_plural#Plurals_of_symbols_and_initialisms

I could point out that the personal address at the end of your sentence should ideally be separated from the sentence by a comma, but that would just be nitpicking, and could go either way anyway. And what kind of jackass corrects someone's grammar on an issue that could really go either way with no loss of clarity?

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[ehrichweiss]

"By moving analog channels to digital as i mentioned..."

But you just said that digital takes up less bandwidth, at a ratio of 6(or 10) to 1. So they require more bandwidth because of what again?

Regardless, you've proven my point, cable is max'ing out on bandwidth to the point they have to increase their capacity or else they have to double-up on the number of cables to each house(and all the pain that comes with it), where satellite only has to add a new bird and the customer only needs an LNB.

Re:DVD vs HD quality

[pixelite]

So they require more bandwidth because of what again?

Analog requires more bandwith than digital.

cable is max'ing out on bandwidth to the point they have to increase their capacity

As far as i know the specs for cable are limited to 5-1000Mhz, I think its what the FCC
allows cable operators to run on; whereas, sattelite operates between 1050-2050Mhz.
It is that very fact that allows you to run BOTH sattelite and cable on the same wire
using diplexers. Running two wires into your home would not provide more bandwith since
cable would still be limited to the same frequencies It would allow you to run more tvs,
however, the same could be accomplished with a proper installation and amplification if
necessary.

Remember bandwith is finite, that is why FCC is ousting analog, to make better use of
the available bandwith.

How about "Phoning Home" and DRM?

[stretch0611]

The article fails to mention my reason for avoiding a new format: I do not want the extra features that the manufacturers put into the players., including:
1) DRM
2) The ability for the players to "phone home".
3) Any other "feature" that makes it more difficult for the consumer. By this I mean anything that forces the user to do something he does not want to like the PUOPs on standard DVDs. You can be forced to watch previews when you start a disk without having the option to skip forward or advance the track. I expect HD and Blu Ray to be worse in this matter.

Why should I pay a lot of money for a new player and shell out more money per movie? For the insignificant increase in video quality? Do I need that level of resolution to watch a tv series or most movies? Maybe I will like the difference on a few action movies, but until the price is under $200 for a player and the cost of movies is on par with standard def, I will not upgrade.

Re:How about "Phoning Home" and DRM?

[jamesh]

By this I mean anything that forces the user to do something he does not want to like the PUOPs on standard DVDs. You can be forced to watch previews when you start a disk without having the option to skip forward or advance the track. I expect HD and Blu Ray to be worse in this matter.

The kids got a stack of DVD's for Christmas. I'm bordering on _FURIOUS_ that on some of them we have to sit through about 3 minutes of previews and "You wouldn't steal a car... video piracy is stealing" warnings. Honestly... it's crap like that that makes me want to just download instead of purchasing. Why on earth should someone who's actually doing what the recording industry wants and buying instead of stealing be the one who has to sit through the warnings and ads???

Re:How about "Phoning Home" and DRM?

[rho]

On kids' DVDs no less. They're tugging at your pants, "I wanna watch Belle and Beast!" You're trying to skip through FBI warnings and whatnot, they're slowing having a meltdown.

I think the CyberHome DVD player my sister has ($30 from RadioShack *last Christmas*) is superior to my Pioneer. Hers has an Autoplay feature that automatically skips ahead to the biggest chunk of video and starts playing. Which is, usually, the movie. Right now I'm thinking of ripping the kiddie DVDs and re-burning them as simple one-track discs.

Re:How about "Phoning Home" and DRM?

[MikeUW]

Haven't you seen the Body Snatchers? The big media industries want everyone to be mindless drones who point and scream to alert others if anyone is infringing copyright.

Re:How about "Phoning Home" and DRM?

[Kenoli]

A message designed to discourage piracy actually encourages it.
Man, irony is great.

Re:How about "Phoning Home" and DRM?

[Ours]

I love that "piss off the honest customer" tactic. Makes me feel like I should have downloaded the movie instead of being stupid and coming up with the bright idea of buying it and then been subjected to propaganda like I did something wrong. They may just as well stick a "go to piratebay and get this movie" add or something.
Maybe somebody at the MPAA was convinced that when you rip a DVD, you get the whole thing and "pirates" release the movie with propaganda and all.

Re:How about "Phoning Home" and DRM?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdSFe0UgB3E

Re:How about "Phoning Home" and DRM?

[Anonymous Coward]

Solution: Netflix + ripping software (like DVD Fab Decrypter) + burning software. Strip out the UOPs and enjoy.

Re:How about "Phoning Home" and DRM?

[LinuxIsRetarded]

They're tugging at your pants, "I wanna watch Belle and Beast!" You're trying to skip through FBI warnings and whatnot, they're slowing having a meltdown.

Oh, freakin' come on! Just politely say, "daddy will set up the movie...just hang on." If the temper tantrum continues, they don't watch the movie. I understand your frustration, but we all need to take a step back and reconsider our priorities when we have to watch something IMMEDIATELY and start to experience a "meltdown" when there's a slight delay.

It is a bit irritating to have to sit through warnings that I already know and obey. On the other hand, many other people don't know the laws and the consequences for breaking them. Perhaps they engage in piracy out of ignorance of the law, or perhaps they just are selfish and don't care. In any case, that's the end result of living in a fallen world. Some people simply need to be reminded of the laws and the consequences for breaking them; otherwise they simply won't follow the laws. The same goes for all the DUI and seatbelt commercials on TV- I already know the laws and follow them; many people don't.

Re:How about "Phoning Home" and DRM?

[MtViewGuy]

I'm bordering on _FURIOUS_ that on some of them we have to sit through about 3 minutes of previews and "You wouldn't steal a car... video piracy is stealing" warnings.

Funny you mention this because on most HD-DVD discs they start with the movie immediately after the disc starts playing. Disney on their recent DVD releases put in a new feature called Fast Play that brings you to the movie at once by skipping all other menus, something I really appreciate.

Re:How about "Phoning Home" and DRM?

[Rageon]

Yeah, I've got a couple of those Cyberhome (or similar) players, as well as a mid-level Pioneer. Yeah, the AStar and Cyberhome let me skip the unwanted ads, but they also take longer to turn on, longer to load the disc, and generally work like crap -- both in usability and performance. I'd love a player that was both (1) good and (2) not evil.

Re:How about "Phoning Home" and DRM?

[miskatonic alumnus]

And then, there are those of us who know the laws, don't have to be reminded of them, and break them anyway. The fallen world is the one with so many damned laws that a person cannot make it through a single day without breaking at least one of them. Seatbelt laws indeed --- my life, my decision.

Re:How about "Phoning Home" and DRM?

[squiggleslash]

DVD players have DRM too.

FWIW, HD-DVD has gotten rid of the region encoding crap, and doesn't have the more stupid DRM schemes Blu-ray has like BD+ (which caused a lot of players to fall over playing certain recent releases.) There's not a lot of difference between HD-DVD and DVD except that AACS is slightly less breakable than CSS, and HD-DVD makes something called "managed copy" mandatory (this is a positive, not a problem, DVD didn't have any legal way of making copies of access-controlled content.) So in most senses, HD-DVD is more free (or rather less constrained) than DVD.

As far as phoning home goes, you don't have to hook either format up to the Internet. The discs sometimes contain extras that use an Internet connection, but any studio that insists that the main feature be unplayable without an internet connection would be shooting themselves in the foot - not every consumer has a suitable Internet connection. Even those hooked up typically have it connected to a computer without home-networking, and would need the assistance of their local geek to get their Blu-ray or HD-DVD player hooked up.

Re:How about "Phoning Home" and DRM?

[unapersson]

The kids got a stack of DVD's for Christmas. I'm bordering on _FURIOUS_ that on some of them we have to sit through about 3 minutes of previews and "You wouldn't steal a car... video piracy is stealing" warnings.

I found a way through these, a lot of DVDs seem to come with a country selection list at the start of the DVD. Just pick the first on the list. The list seems to be a way of choosing what Anti-Piracy ad you get to see.

Re:How about "Phoning Home" and DRM?

[Nevynxxx]

Seatbelt laws indeed --- my life, my decision.

Happy living with yourself when you break someones neck on impact after making that decision. Oh, you only ever drive? Dang it.

Re:How about "Phoning Home" and DRM?

[jedidiah]

Disney's "Fast Play" is actually the worse and only serves to confuse the situation.

The main feature should start when you put the disc in, period.

Those stupid Disney Fast Play DVDs are what started me
ripping the main feature out of DVDs. Initially, my
virutal jukebox was just that: a complete copy of the
original DVD's in their original form that could be
accessed as if they were in a physical jukebox.

That Disney BS got me in the habit of just yanking out
the main feature and having that single vob of the DVD
on the media server.

Re:How about "Phoning Home" and DRM?

[corsec67]

Then you need a Better DVD player, one that doesn't prevent you from skipping that stuff.

Re:How about "Phoning Home" and DRM?

[Avatar8]

I agree with not wanting new "features."

1) I don't have an issue with DRM from the legitimate issues I've read about. Tinfoil hat wearers don't scare me.
2) As long as the player doesn't have to phone home to function, I'm fine with leaving it disconnected. I did this with my DirecTV. You plug in a phone line for pay-per-view and receiving local content. Neither mattered to me, so I left it disconnected.
3) THIS I do hate. All I want to do is watch the movie. I'm getting into the habit of putting the DVD into the player, starting it and spending the next 10 minutes getting snacks and drinks while I wait for the crap to finish and get me to the menu. All of the movie/studio/production company logos and animations in front of the actual movie are annoying enough. Show me what I paid for already! Interactive (i.e. animated and delayed) menus are annoying. The only extra content I ever care about is behind the scenes videos and deleted scenes. If I want to play a game, I use my computer.

The winner of my consumer dollars will be the company that delivers a movie when I pay for a movie. Right now VOD through my Verizon FiOS is winning hands-down.

Re:How about "Phoning Home" and DRM?

[Chabil Ha']

Anyone know of an upconverting DVD drive? The product you describe seems pretty interesting, but I'd like to be able to control through my MythBox--meaning I'd need a an actual DVD drive.

Re:How about "Phoning Home" and DRM?

[corsec67]

That would a normal DVD drive and software. If you aren't in windows-land, it seems like that would just be software, since DRM isn't involved there.

Re:How about "Phoning Home" and DRM?

[doughrama]

Seriously. Kids dvds are the worst at that. Lots of previews that you can't skip etc etc. I purchased a AppleTV hooked it up and now rip all of my dvd's. I had 2 motivating factors for doing this. Motivating factor number 1 was to keep physical media away from the (then 2.5yrs old) kid's hands. The other and the true motivating factor was the pain I'd have to go through to setup a kid's movie for my daughter to watch.

Re:How about "Phoning Home" and DRM?

[Anonymous Coward]

After I buy the movie I just ripe the DVD and remove all that crap. I then have just the show for my kids to watch on the Computer (usually in a divx format) and burn a 'movie only' DVD for there abuse. I really hate watching 5 minutes of crap that is years old for something that I bought!

Re:How about "Phoning Home" and DRM?

[klui]

Looks good at first glance, but people have experience various problems with the H4000 http://www.helios-labs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=72 even after people have applied the latest firmware.

Re:How about "Phoning Home" and DRM?

[SanityInAnarchy]

Disclaimer: I work in HD-DVD.

1) DRM

Standard DVDs have that. Worse, they have region coding, and many of them have additional crap DRM schemes, mostly designed to corrupt the disc in just such a way that computer players, or rippers, won't be able to read it, but normal set-top players will. I say "crap" because this necessarily is retardedly innaccurate -- Sony put out some DVDs this way that wouldn't play with some of their own DVD players.

Now, Blu-Ray has mandatory AACS and optional BD-Mark, and I think it also has region coding, though I'm not sure. HD-DVD has optional AACS (though it'll be on almost all discs, and is currently required to get at persistent storage), and no region coding -- and if the studios would wake up, it also has the ability to have the disc react to the player's preferred language, making the need for region-specific discs entirely obsolete.

2) The ability for the players to "phone home".

That's going to be true of any software. If you're that worried of... well, first off, what are you worried about? That someone will know what movie you're watching?

But really, no one's going to release a movie which requires Internet access. In fact, not all Blu-Ray players have it, and while all HD-DVD players have an ethernet jack, I strongly doubt any of the movies will refuse to play without an Internet connection.

Now, suppose your worst nightmare comes true -- you plug it into the Internet, it phones home, and the studio tells it not to play that disc. All it takes is for you to unplug the network and wipe persistent storage for that title, and you can play the movie again.

3) Any other "feature" that makes it more difficult for the consumer. By this I mean anything that forces the user to do something he does not want to like the PUOPs on standard DVDs. You can be forced to watch previews when you start a disk without having the option to skip forward or advance the track. I expect HD and Blu Ray to be worse in this matter.

Technically, yes. Specifically, the script in HD-DVD can prevent all key input, and then control the playback. If a studio were really stupid, they could show you an animated Goatse and prevent you from doing anything except pressing stop -- and they could delay the stop for two seconds.

However, you suggest that the studios have learned nothing from DVDs. That doesn't seem to be the case -- I work in HD-DVD, and we get discs from all the major studios who are doing that format. None of them do the "You wouldn't steal a car" bullshit. The worst they do is give you a little "This is HD-DVD" commercial before the main movie, which is entirely skippable. The longest thing that's unskippable is the ten second or so studio logo, which, let's be honest, your player is going to take much longer to boot up and to start that disc.

I agree that it's nicer to put that choice back in the hands of the consumer, but I don't think they're practical issues anymore, only idealogical. And if you've been avoiding them because of that, I doubt you're one to judge the "insignificant increase in video quality" -- it is significant. I was completely surprised when I first saw it, especially on a series like Heroes.

Do I need that level of resolution to watch a tv series or most movies? Maybe I will like the difference on a few action movies, but until the price is under $200 for a player and the cost of movies is on par with standard def, I will not upgrade.

Beat you to it.

Last I checked, there are HD-DVD players under $200. There was one that sold at Wall-Mart for $99 for a weekend or something, but I think they still have players for $150. If you already have an Xbox 360, the HD-DVD drive is under $200, and it will plug into a computer (though I'm not sure if you can use it to play movies on a computer).

So the only thing keeping you from upgrading is the cost of the disc itself. Worst case, you can Netflix them, and the movie prices are dropping.

Re:How about "Phoning Home" and DRM?

[Auckerman]

The good news is that the HDMI port doesn't have any HDCP, so there aren't any compatibility issues with TVs.

Hate to break it to you, but the lack of HDCP causes issues with some TVs. There's quite a few HDTVs on the market that give a false max resolution over HDMI when there is no HDCP handshake that occurs. Typically, it's 1024x768, though I can be lower than that. Of course, with DVDs that's irrelevant since "upconverting" offers no nothing unless your TV doesn't have an scaler built in. Can't invent resolution that's not there.

Re:How about "Phoning Home" and DRM?

[TastelessGarbage]

Another way is to: 1) Load DVD into player 2) Wait 5 minutes or so 3) Turn on TV (or switch to DVD feed) The first thing you will see is the start menu. Not ideal, but if you don't have the coin for a new player....

Re:How about "Phoning Home" and DRM?

[DragonWriter]

and if the studios would wake up, it also has the ability to have the disc react to the player's preferred language, making the need for region-specific discs entirely obsolete.

Region-specific disks do not exist to serve consumers best in their native language, they exist to make it possible for studios to sell region-specific distribution rights with some veneer of confidence in the buyer that cheaper content from different distributors in other regions won't be imported to undercut the regional exclusivity.

So the feature you are referring to has nothing to do with the "need", insofar as such a need ever existed, for region-specific disks.

Re:How about "Phoning Home" and DRM?

[spiderbitendeath]

I have a cheap Go Video dvd player. It skips all that crap and just loads the main movie. Makes watching new dvds almost bearable. If there were some good movies on them, it'd be better.

Re:How about "Phoning Home" and DRM?

[Anonymous Coward]

Every HD-DVD I have watched had NO previews, and the only thing you are forced to sit through is a FBI warning, like what has been on VHS tapes since the beginning. Granted, you cannot FF through it.

Discs with forced previews are bullshit. But I have yet to see these on HD-DVD.

Re:How about "Phoning Home" and DRM?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seatbelt laws indeed --- my life, my decision.

Just so long as people are not still going on about your death, due to not wearing one, more than a decade after your funeral. Whilst the press still continues to miss that had you been wearing one you'd probably have walked away with minor injuries...

Re:How about "Phoning Home" and DRM?

[mpe]

Happy living with yourself when you break someones neck on impact after making that decision. Oh, you only ever drive? Dang it.

Ironically the most talked about death due to someone failing to wear a seat belt involves a (rear seat) passenger. The passenger in the front seat, who was wearing a seat belt, being the only survivor.

Re:How about "Phoning Home" and DRM?

[uniquename72]

As long as motorcycles are legal, seatbelt laws are ridiculous.

Re:How about "Phoning Home" and DRM?

[CoffeeJedi]

Try simply Fast Forwarding instead of "menu" or "title". Not quite as nice, but it generally works.

Re:How about "Phoning Home" and DRM?

[ashridah]

Yeah, I hate that. It's why i used to use linux for DVD playback almost exclusively.

That said, I recently watched a DVD on my xbox 360. I was very surprised when I was able to skip (using the 'next chapter' button) all of these supposedly unskippable parts. I'm sure it's just a bug, or something... :)

Re:How about "Phoning Home" and DRM?

[jimmyswimmy]

According to Helios...

Notice for users of the following display models: Sharp AQUOS 46XD1E, Sony KDL-40V2500, Sony KDL-40XBR2, Sony SXRD KDS-50A2000, Sony Bravia KDL46"XBR, Sony KDS-R60XBR2, Mitsubishi WD-57732, Westinghouse LVM-42w2, Westinghouse LVM-37w3, other similar models. There is a known compatibility issue between the H4000 and certain 1080p displays. The issue affects 1080p signals over HDMI connections. Due to different implementations of the Player-Display communication (HDMI handshaking) certain displays can not accept the 1080p signal from the H4000. If you have any questions about your display and compatibility with the H4000, please contact Support.
Unfortunately this includes the TV I got. And I was such a fan of the HDMI cable concept - a decent connector design, a single cable for both audio and video. Ah well. Seems like a decent DVD player, and for $119 it's tough to go that wrong.

Re:How about "Phoning Home" and DRM?

[Raenex]

Some people simply need to be reminded of the laws and the consequences for breaking them That's right. Everybody should be forced to watch legal warnings and previews every time they watch a movie, because gosh darn it, people need to learn! Thank you, Ned Flanders.

Re:How about "Phoning Home" and DRM?

[nexeruza]

Won't somebody please think of the children. If they can get to just 'one' person, it will all be worth it. To punish 1000 innocent for the sake of 1 guilty, its a sacrifice we all must endure to further our control gods will. I for one welcome our not-even-close-to-new overlords to rape the good at will rather than those that deserve it for SOMEBODY MUST PAY. When money is involved never ever wonder why.

Re:How about "Phoning Home" and DRM?

[SanityInAnarchy]

Region-specific disks do not exist to serve consumers best in their native language, they exist to make it possible for studios to sell region-specific distribution rights with some veneer of confidence in the buyer that cheaper content from different distributors in other regions won't be imported to undercut the regional exclusivity.

I understand.

I'm not entirely sure what I mean by "wake up". Maybe I also mean "wake up to globalization", or maybe just "stop being such asshats".

So the feature you are referring to has nothing to do with the "need", insofar as such a need ever existed, for region-specific disks.

Actually, the feature I am referring to basically removes any reason other than what you just outlined. Were it not for this feature, they could argue that foreign discs are going to have weird menus, and I'm fairly sure standard DVDs can't tune their menus to the local language.

It should help foreign films, though. They no longer have to cut a deal with someone in the US, they simply have to hire a translator and make us pay for shipping. Depending on the country, the price of the movie plus shipping might be cheaper than the movie alone if it had a version here.

Re:How about "Phoning Home" and DRM?

[Floritard]

This has always struck me as incredibly short-sighted. The trailers themselves have a shelf-life of 1-2 months, yet there they are for the lifetime of your use of the disc, for years and years reminding you of the forgettable past as if it were still just around the corner. Most of the time the trailers are for movies that are insufferably mediocre, as that is every major entertainment industry's main product, although they have managed to somehow miraculously film 3-4 minutes of decent footage, all of which is included in the trailer to provoke an undeserved interest in rental or purchase. When finally viewed and subsequently hated, forcefully repeated viewings of the trailers of these lame films on other discs of movies that I do enjoy leave me with a tangible sense of irritation and disgust.

It was enough to make me give up on the whole thing. DVD extras have nothing on the sweet sweet instant playback/easy seeking of XVids on my XBMC. Anymore I rip just to get away from the marketting pit of DVD.

Killing their customer base

[mulhollandj]

How many are staying out of this because they don't like the copyright 'protection' which really hurts the functionality and ends up hurting the experience of legitimate users?

Re:Killing their customer base

[stewbacca]

I assure you, only a small group of slashdot users think like this. Name ONE non-techie family member or friend of yours that has ever ripped a DVD to a computer for the "experience of legitimate users".

Re:Killing their customer base

[bcattwoo]

How many are staying out of this because they don't like the copyright 'protection' which really hurts the functionality and ends up hurting the experience of legitimate users? On slashdot these may be real concerns, but for most of the populace I bet this is a non-issue. I am reasonably tech savvy, but have never been interested in ripping any DVDs, watching them on my computer, etc. I think most of us sheeple are pretty much the same, in that we watch our DVDs once or twice and then enjoy the warm, fuzzy feeling of knowing that it is taking up space in the media center.

Re:Killing their customer base

[mkcmkc]

Actually, I'm still staying out of the current DVD format, for these reasons...

Re:Killing their customer base

[jedidiah]

My non-techie family members have enough trouble hooking up SD components.

The pathalogical need of Hollywood to add encryption between the DVD player and the TV just ensured that those non-techie family members now have NO HOPE WHATSOEVER of correctly hooking up an HD device to their TV by themselves. Shifting interchange formats and revokable player keys will further complicate that.

This all leads to certain discs not playing in certain players.

We don't even have to get into media center ripping to demonstrate the harm of DRM to consumers.

It makes the entire system more brittle, more error prone and more likely to cause the non-techie end users some degree of difficulty or loss of service.

Re:Killing their customer base

[Avatar8]

Only part about copyright protection that annoys me are the freaking non-skippable warnings that prevent me from getting to the movie quicker.

Guess I can thank you and those wanting to "experience" the whole DVD for that.

Even when offered to me by a friend, I've never had a desire to copy a DVD or acquire pirated or copied content. The few times I watched a pirated, early release movie or a copy of a rental my reaction was "That was a waste of my time; now I have to pay for or wait to see the movie legitimately so I can see and hear it clearly and enjoy it."

Yeah, yeah. You'll respond with "It wasn't a good copy." When it's all said and done, is it really worth the time and effort it takes to do all that crap? All I want to do is pop a disc into my player, sit back and enjoy a movie in the privacy and convenience of my home.

What functionality and experience are you claiming to be hurt?

Re:Killing their customer base

[Anonymous Coward]

While my non-techie family members do not rip DVD:s, both my father and my brother have been bitten by region coding.

Long stories short, dad bought a hard-to-find movie on DVD online with the wrong region encoding and couldn't watch it. My brother got annoyed when his MacBook informed him that "You can only change region 5 (or whatever it is) times" and said "They do this whole 'it's all digital and compatible and the whole world is at your fingertips' number, and then they tell me 'sorry, you can only watch the DVD:s we decide you can watch'?!"

I think those events have made more to keep them off HD than the price, since I've told them that HD has even more DRM. They remember the hassles they've had with regular DVD:s, and decide that HD simply is not worth it.

Re:Killing their customer base

[Anonymous Coward]

I assure you, only a small group of slashdot users think like this. Name ONE non-techie family member ...

True, but who do the non-techie members ask for advice on what to buy?

As Tim O'Reilly pointed out, you want to look to the alpha geeks and early adopters to know where things are headed.

Re:Killing their customer base

[Anonymous Coward]

I can name 6. All of my aunts and uncles that have younger kids (and their spouses so that makes 12). None of them are technical at all but I installed RipIt4Me and its associated apps and showed them its Wizard mode. None had any problem, and all are quite happy with not worrying about the original discs being wrecked by children. It's also a good way to teach kids about responsibility and careful disc handling because you don't have to be afraid that them wrecking the disc will also punishing you by having to buy another.

Re:Killing their customer base

[SanityInAnarchy]

Wait -- doesn't ripping a DVD to a computer already qualify you as a techie?

Thus, your statement is nonsensical, unless you can give me a definition of "techie" which allows people to rip DVDs to a computer, for any reason (legitimate or not), without also being a techie.

I'll argue that it's actually easy enough, and common enough, that plenty of people I'd otherwise consider non-techies are willing to learn that much, so they can fill their video iPod, or take a DVD with them in a laptop.

Re:Killing their customer base

[Anonymous Coward]

The ones with kids -- the kids treat things quite well, but it's still far preferable to let them play the copy in case of accident.

The ones who travel. Those are the ones that tend to transcode to more efficient formats, though they wouldn't necessarily know what "transcode" meant... software does it for them.

The ones who have scratched discs that no longer play in a standalone player but will backup on a PC.

The occasional one or two beginning to experiment with a PC in the living room hooked up to a TV for games, and realising they can stick all of their films onto that PC for convenience.

We're now at the stage that making backups of DVDs is straightforward and not something that requires a tech mentality. Certainly not to see the benefits. It happened with CD to MP3, and is now happening with DVD... the unwashed masses are heading towards not accepting restrictions on stuff they bought. And, like MP3, the fact that it doesn't take skill to get that convenience any more means that old but useful standards will become entrenched whilst other new (and possibly better) formats are trying to get established.

Non-techies don't understand the MP3 format or things like bitrate -- they understand convenience.

Re:Killing their customer base

[stewbacca]

doesn't ripping a DVD to a computer already qualify you as a techie?

You are making my point for me. How else do you back up a dvd for "fair use", or make it in some form that an mp3 player can play? Isn't this the argument against copyright controls in the first place? My point, in otherwords, is that non-techies don't care about copy schemes, because it doesn't affect them.

Re:Killing their customer base

[Alastor187]

Name ONE non-techie family member or friend of yours that has ever ripped a DVD to a computer for the "experience of legitimate users". My wife. She made me rip a Thomas and Friends dvd because you could not fast forward to the menu. The five minutes of ads would make my two year old anxious, and cause my wife to throw a fit. I think everyday for a week she reminded me I need to 'fix' that DVD. Not only did I take out the ads, I took out the menu so it starts right at the first story. They both love it.

Re:Killing their customer base

[Anonymous Coward]

At least once a week I get asked how to put the DVDs you own onto your iPod.

Re:Killing their customer base

[cubicleman]

Heck, I've never even done that..never had a compelling reason to...and I'm a techie..

Re:Killing their customer base

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty much anyone with a portable media player - people rip movies to play on their iPod in exactly the same way as they previously ripped MP3s.

Re:Killing their customer base

[SanityInAnarchy]

My point, in otherwords, is that non-techies don't care about copy schemes, because it doesn't affect them.

And my point, which you are missing, is that "non-techies" is a smaller and smaller crowd these days.

Remember when only techies cared about the Internet? Back then, you could make the same argument -- someone who uses the Internet was, by definition, a techie.

Well, my grandmother uses the Internet. Literally -- she's hard of hearing, and email is simply easier for her.

So, in my experience, more and more people actually do know how to rip DVDs, who are not otherwise techies -- other than, oh, owning and using their own computer, cell phone, DVR, and so on.

Reasons I haven't jumped in

[cheebie]

The jump from VHS to DVD bought be a better picture, better durability, much greater convenience, cheaper prices (eventually), more variety, and there was only one format so I didn't have to worry about buying a DVD player only to have it turn into a blinking boat anchor. It cost me the ability to record since I wouldn't shell out for a DVD burner, but I found I didn't miss it all that much.

The jump from DVD to High-Def DVD will buy me a better picture, and that's it. And I get to worry that I'll chose the wrong format and it will be worthless in 2 years. The dual format ones are still too expensive.

So, I wait for the dust to settle before I toss more money into the bottomless technological gizmo pit.

Re:Reasons I haven't jumped in

[steevc]

Pretty much echoes my thoughts. Moving to HD will mean a new TV, new player and paying more for broadcast TV if I want HD. I don't watch much TV anyway and most DVD watching in our house is by the kids who don't care about HD. I'm still on a CRT TV that I inherited from someone buying a big plasma.

I think that the moves to stereo and widescreen for broadcast TV were more significant for most of the public. They are just being brainwashed into 'upgrading' to flat screens with HD as the sweetner.

I empathise with those who complain about non-skipable warnings on DVDs. My player (Sony) doesn't let me skip them. I paid for the damn things, why should I have to be preached to about piracy. I bet the pirate copies don't have this 'feature'. Disney are amonst the worst for this and you sometimes have to skip past a load of trailers to get to the menu. These are the most watched disks as well. I've just not got around to building a media server to host just the films.

Re:Reasons I haven't jumped in

[GrayCalx]

The jump from DVD to High-Def DVD will buy me a better picture, and that's it.

There are some other differences, albeit minor compared to the image quality. Sound has been improved (on both formats). And on HD-DVD (I don't own a bluray) the menu/features have been improved. I guess it is pretty minor, but they are handy and cool. Turning on subtitles while the movie's still playing, checking out all the extras without having to stop the movie from playing. Things like that... turning on all the extras without starting the movie over.

But I do completely agree with you, its just not worth it now for consumers to jump in. I bought a hd-dvd for my 360 for cheap, but that was my max. I can't drop $400 on a tech that hasn't really panned out yet. Everyones waiting for the dual players...once those are sub-150 or so, most people should wait.

Re:Reasons I haven't jumped in

[cheebie]

think that the moves to stereo and widescreen for broadcast TV were more significant for most of the public. They are just being brainwashed into 'upgrading' to flat screens with HD as the sweetner.

I do have to say that upgrading to HD television itself was worth it. The difference in picture quality is amazing. The depth of color and picture really does make it seem more 'real' than regular TV. I probably will get an HD DVD player once the dust settles and the early-adopter price premium drops away.

Re:Reasons I haven't jumped in

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you forgot the whole - vs + format of DVD.

modest

Re:Reasons I haven't jumped in

[Fear the Clam]

For me, improved DVD menus would be text-only with immediate feedback.

I hate how nowadays every DVD has to have a a little intro for each section of the menu and its own, hard-to-interpret way of indicating which selection is selected.

Re:Reasons I haven't jumped in

[Anonymous Coward]

Turning on subtitles while the movie's still playing

My 3-4 year old $200 DVD player does that, as well as letting me change the soundtrack. I honestly didn't know you could get a DVD player that couldn't do that.

Re:Reasons I haven't jumped in

[anethema]

My $60 xbox media center does all of this. In addition to upscaling dvds to HD resolution.

Re:Reasons I haven't jumped in

[Anonymous Coward]

There were actually two DVD formats originally. The other was DIVX (not the codec) that was marketed by Circuit City.

Re:Reasons I haven't jumped in

[evilviper]

The jump from VHS to DVD bought be a better picture, better durability, much greater convenience, cheaper prices (eventually), more variety,

BluRay brings you better picture, MUCH better durability, and may (eventually) bring cheaper prices.

Variety? There's still plenty of movies on VHS I can't find on DVDs, so I don't know where you get that idea.

Re:Reasons I haven't jumped in

[Blakey Rat]

Turning on subtitles while the movie's still playing, checking out all the extras without having to stop the movie from playing. Things like that... turning on all the extras without starting the movie over.

The vast majority of DVD players do that right now. The trick is to use the DVD Player's menu to access that content, not the graphical menu on the DVD itself. It's just a different button on the remote, and it'll switch subtitles on, change audio language, change to different "Titles" (i.e. special features) without interrupting the playback.

Does HD-DVD still have that cool-but-pointless camera angles feature, where you can view a scene from a different camera angle?

Re:Reasons I haven't jumped in

[SanityInAnarchy]

I'm not sure if HD-DVD allows you to view a scene from a different camera angle at HD resolutions, but it does allow picture-in-picture stuff, so you could do it that way.

And that's just subtitles and audio language. Both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray have programmable menus -- as in, there's a bit of Javascript running on that HD-DVD that can make that menu do more than switch subtitles.

Re:Reasons I haven't jumped in

[SanityInAnarchy]

Try this: Not text-only, but generally consistent. (At least, between the major studios -- so all Warner discs have basically the same layout, and all Universal discs have pretty much identical menus.)

Not entirely instant, maybe a half second or so of animation to bring the menu up, but without interrupting the movie. And maybe the scene selections are hard to interpret, but some discs (all Warner discs, at least) allow you to save your own scenes. (As in, press a button, and that timestamp gets added at the end of the chapter list.)

Re:Reasons I haven't jumped in

[SanityInAnarchy]

The jump from DVD to High-Def DVD will buy me a better picture, and that's it.

Disclaimer: I work in the industry.

It does have better sound, if you can tell. But HD-DVD, at least, is not all about picture -- if you want, you can put standard-def content on a dual-layer DVD, maybe even a single-layer, and still have it be an HD-DVD format.

So what's the point?

There are actually other features on the disc.

Sure, most are flashy crap. There's "managed copy", which isn't really accessible from script, and doesn't allow you to make a fully functional copy -- it's designed, I suppose, to make it legal to rip it to your video iPod. There's the usual deleted scenes, and there's pointless crap like customizable trailers -- assemble a list of scenes and upload them to the Internet, where other people watching the same movie can download them and watch a trailer, for the same movie. (But they're fun -- top-rated trailer on 300 is probably still "penetration", which is all of the scenes in the movie in which people are either having sex or getting stabbed.

But some of them actually are worthwhile.

A recent example: I was watching Goodfellas, and I had to go somewhere. Figured leaving the HDTV on, with the movie paused, would probably be a waste of power (disc could be kept spinning for all I know), and possibly even a danger of burning the image in.

On Warner titles, there's a button on the remote which bookmarks the current time. So I did that. Bookmarked it, then stopped the movie, turned the TV and player completely OFF. Then came back an hour or two later, turned them all back on, found my bookmark in the menu, and went back there.

And hey -- some of those features are actually kind of cool. Heroes has the ability to pull up the corresponding painting for any scene. It was actually the subject of a bit of debate how this was managed, as the painting was larger than the screen, with the ability to scroll, which is difficult to do without running out of pixel buffer. But it can be done.

None of the above features rely on more storage or better video, though these are nice. But that's really only the beginning.

Re:Reasons I haven't jumped in

[DiarmuidBourke]

Most dvd players have an audio track and subtitle button that does it while the movie is playing. Lots of dvd players can upscale too. You bought a hd-dvd addon for your xbox, so thats more than $400 on a tech that hasn't really panned out yet.

TBH, I think that hd-dvd and blu-ray will be completely out of date before they're popular, mainly due to the increasing demand for media centers and dvrs.

Re:Reasons I haven't jumped in

[will_die]

Like you say non of those features require the new features but they are not really new.
My current cheap DVD has the record the time feature, no menu just a record and jump buttoms. The feature I really miss is that on my first DVD had that automatically, just click the off button or when the auto-shut off activated. Then when you came back and wanted to continue just hit the play button and you continued from where you were. A quick google search found a few sub$50 dvd players with multiple bookmarks; now if the microsoft developers for WMP would learn what they are..
As for the pictures that is just because the format is new. I have some old DVD that had similar capabilities where you could click on certain scenes and display still pictures you could then use the arrow keys to move around; I also have other DVD that actually used the alternate video angle capabilies. So while you get theses neat features now on HD-DVD but I don't see much chance that you will see them once the manufacturers no longer need theses "demo" discs.

Re:Reasons I haven't jumped in

[Anonymous Coward]

"better picture and thats it"???

WTF do you expect?

Re:Reasons I haven't jumped in

[Fear the Clam]

Consistent would be a good start. I'm not keen on the idea of it being done by studios, though, as I neither know nor care which studio does which flick. How about some standard human-interface guidelines so it's consistent across movies? Maybe include guidelines on feedback too, so that it's clear what's being selected. I think the worst I ever saw was when the frame around a box went from white to--I kid you not--silver. WTF?

A half-second of animation would be tolerable. What I object to now is having to wait and wait for something that intellectually isn't worth the wait. It's like on a web page waiting for a flash animation to load to make a simple menu selection that could pop up instantly in HTML.

I like the saving your own scenes thing you describe, but my gripe was really about when one goes do something that should be simple, like selecting a single episode of a TV show instead of telling it to play all.

Re:Reasons I haven't jumped in

[GrayCalx]

I only paid $40 more and can play hd-dvds so nyaah.

Re:Reasons I haven't jumped in

[SanityInAnarchy]

Consistent would be a good start. I'm not keen on the idea of it being done by studios, though, as I neither know nor care which studio does which flick.

Not really a better way around it -- and they seem to really be wanting you to care. Universal has a brand and everything.

How about some standard human-interface guidelines so it's consistent across movies?

Well, it's at least consistent within the studio, as I said. Universal movies all have menus that look and feel exactly the same, down to the graphics and sound. (The menu makes a sound when sliding in.)

Warner, on the other hand, has basically the same UI on almost all of them, but skinned differently. So you might have that white-to-silver crap, but at least the layout would be predictable.

my gripe was really about when one goes do something that should be simple, like selecting a single episode of a TV show instead of telling it to play all.

That part is going to be about the same on HD-DVDs as it was on DVDs, except that the menu is going to be available with the movie playing, and the resolution does actually make UI design a lot easier.

Also, I'm guessing partly because of the cost, it is, again, consistent. Every single Heroes disc had the same menu to select episodes, and every other Universal disc had the same menu to select scenes.

One more thing: Just to see if I could, I coded a particular scrolling menu with a key buffer, which also notices the user mashing and speeds up the scrolling animation at that point. It's not going to be as nice as an iPhone, or even a traditional scrollbar, but it's about the best we can do with a remote. (Holding the button down cannot work.)

However, I do freely admit that the platform makes it possible to absolutely torture you. We could make you sit through commercials, we could do five second long animations (or thirty seconds), could chain multiple animations for simple tasks, and could force you to register before even watching the movie. But I, personally, refuse to do that.

The Real Problem

[aussie_a]

The real problem is everyone is worried about which one will become Beta and which will become VHS that only the extreme early adopters and easily swayed have bought into one. I've had salesmen specifically tell me not to buy Blue-Ray or HDDVD until one of them wins the war. Them telling people this costs them money, and yet they continue to do it.

Re:The Real Problem

[Technician]

The real problem is everyone is worried about which one will become Beta and which will become VHS that only the extreme early adopters and easily swayed have bought into one. I've had salesmen specifically tell me not to buy Blue-Ray or HDDVD until one of them wins the war. Them telling people this costs them money, and yet they continue to do it.

From what I've seen, the war is not so much VHS vs Betamax. Both those formats got great traction. With the adoption rates against the established standards, the war looks more line of RCA Selectivision capacitive disc verses the Pioneer Laserdisc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitance_Electronic_Disc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laserdisc

Both of these tried to compete with videotape and lost. How would you like to have a box of RCA Selectivision movies? It isn't the price of the player that's the entire problem. It's being stuck with a box of expensive unsupported dead movies.

Re:The Real Problem

[Mad Marlin]

No, that costs them money in the very short term. If I didn't already now the details of the BD/HD-DVD fight and the sales guy actually clued me in like that, he would be a very happy guy at a commission shop. And that is assuming that it would even cost them money in the short term. If I went into a store intending to spend a few hundred dollars on home studio stuff and they went out of their way to not screw me over like that, I would still probably spend several hundred dollars, just on something else in their store that I want.

The future is Blu

[garlicbready]

did anyone else think it ironic that while your reading the above
"The future is Blu" flash advertisement pops up just beneath

I think the "Blu" way is definitely dominating over here in the UK
one look in hmv or the virgin stores in Manchester and there are more blu than brown cases on the shelves by a long way (over here some HD DVD cases appear to be brown instead of red for some reason)
not to mention the can of worms they opened up with Transformers

Looking at some current PC internal drives at the moment quite a lot appear to be dual format for reading
but most are writable only for BD

http://www.microdirect.co.uk/productlister.aspx?n=2,11,78
http://www.aria.co.uk/Products/Components/CD%2FDVD+Drives/HD%2FDVD+BluRay/?p=cF9zdHlsZT1saXN0JnBfcHJvZHVjdHNQZXJQYWdlPSY=
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/productlist.php?groupid=701&catid=10&subid=314 - BDR drives
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/productlist.php?groupid=701&catid=558&subid=1022 - HD DVD media still in stock
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/productlist.php?groupid=701&catid=558&subid=1023 - BDR media sold out

I've yet to see a HD DVD writer (reader yes, writer no)

in short it's pretty much a no brainer at the moment
personally I'm waiting for the drives to mature a bit more first before getting one
I remember going through the whole "dual layer" writing thing with DVD's in just the same way
(Pioneer will probably have it all sorted sometime around April I'd guess)

Re:The future is Blu

[MrBandersnatch]

Thanks for those links - I hadn't realized how much players had dropped in price. £117 for a combi-drive puts it into the sensible region for a HTPC....except I assume one would need vista and a HDCP equiped graphics card and TV?

Ahhh well, the graphics card and TV I could live with, Vista? No way.

Almost completely agree

[debest]

Lastly, a HUGE number of consumers can't even tell the difference between DVD and HD quality! The difference in sound is total marketing drivel. But the difference in picture- oh yes, it is major. But that goes to show... if most consumers can't even tell the difference, why should they pay more?

Although there may be some that can't tell the difference in quality, I think a far larger proportion of people just don't care about the increase in quality (myself included). I've seen demos in stores. I've seen a Sony disc that tries to show the difference side-by-side on the same movie (splitting the screen of a scene to show the left side as DVD and the other as Blu-Ray). Yeah, it's way better, but I don't give a crap! I don't have the cash, or the desire, to upgrade my television. DVD is good enough for me, and will be for a long, long time. I do not have interest in paying one cent more for the better quality video.

Never mind how much more difficult it is to rip the content!

Re:Almost completely agree

[TheRaven64]

Mod parent up. My stepfather is still buying VHS tapes if they are cheap, because the quality is good enough. DVDs are more convenient (no need to rewind, smaller space required to store them) and so he's more-or-less switched to buying them. He has a huge collection of films and absolutely no intention of buying either HD format. He can see DVD is better than VHS, but the content not the pixel count is what he cares about.

I tend to watch most DVDs on my laptop these days. I upgrade roughly every three years, so in two years I might end up with a BD or HD-DVD drive. At that point, I might start watching movies on whichever format the drive supports. I don't buy DVDs anymore though, I only ever rent them. I rarely want to watch a film more than once, and so I'd rather pay a fixed rate for access to new films than buy them individually. In two years, if someone is offering a download service over the Internet then I'd use that instead of renting disks in any format, as long as it's not tied to Windows and offers a flat-rate cost.

Re:Almost completely agree

[Firethorn]

While I'd willingly pay to be able to view HD content, I'm not willing to pay a huge(for me) amount of money for it.

I currently have a 32" CRT TV that's approaching a decade old, that I got on special when new. I can't remember what I paid for it, but it's completely functional(unlike my parents old one).

So for me to consider any HDTV I'm going to say that has to be at least within that size category.

The cheapest 720p 32" TV I've seen is $700, the cheapest 1080i is $1000. Consider that a standard TV by default is only 480i.

Then another $300 for one HD DVD player(whether HDDVD or Blueray).

I'm not willing to shell out $1k for HD at this time. Maybe when my TV dies I'll replace it.

You're spot on about quality - my parents made do for years with a standard TV that had a messed up horizontal - everything was stretched so wide that by setting the DVD player to thinking it was trying to dispay standard width on a widescreen using bars was just right.

They didn't get rid of it until they moved. It drove me nuts everytime I visited, but they just didn't care that much.

Re:Almost completely agree

[Jeremy Erwin]

I've seen a Sony disc that tries to show the difference side-by-side on the same movie (splitting the screen of a scene to show the left side as DVD and the other as Blu-Ray).

Those differences are exaggerated. On a well calibrated and well engineered DVD player, the picture looks much better than the simulated version.

That's not to say that there are in fact no differences--it's just that the differences are somewhat subtler. To me, faces look better in HD, provided the color is accurate, and the image hasn't been filtered. Shiny objects (such as water) tend to look a bit more real.

Re:Almost completely agree

[cthulu_mt]

Target has a 42" LCD 1080i for $800 this weekend. I'd pick one up if I hadn't just blown all my savings on a new laptop.

Re:Almost completely agree

[Jonny_eh]

Boo on VHS! Most of the movies on that format are Pan and Scan!
The greatest thing DVD did for home video was making letterbox/anamorphic widescreen mainstream.

Re:Almost completely agree

[DragonWriter]

The cheapest 720p 32" TV I've seen is $700, the cheapest 1080i is $1000.

You've got to mean 1080p not 1080i -- I just switched from a 32" 1080i CRT that I bought a few years ago to a 32" 1080p, the 1080i was about $600 when I bought it then, and the 1080p was only a hair over $1000 when I bought it earlier this month.

Re:Almost completely agree

[RightSaidFred99]

In other news, a $13000 Hyundai gets me from point A to point B just as well as a $43000 BMW. Why on Earth are people buying those BMW's???! It's craziness!

Re:Almost completely agree

[Firethorn]

I knew I shoulda stuck a disclaimer about being sure people could find the stuff cheaper!

Either I'm missing the really good deals in my area, or my area doesn't offer them.

Some quick checking reveals that they're getting cheaper.

Olevia 32" 720P 16:9 - $600 w/shipping
Westinghouse 37" 1080P 16:9 - $860 w/shipping.

Hmm... At that price I'd spend the extra $260 for the 5" of screen estate and extra resolution.

If I was in a purchasing mood...

Re:Almost completely agree

[TheRaven64]

I don't know about the US, but here in the UK a lot of TVs are still 4:3. Most people upgrade their television around once a decade (if that) and even three years ago when my stepfather bought the new one the 4:3 was a lot cheaper than 16:9 (and most TV was still broadcast in 4:3). Now, the fact that VHS tapes contain the 4:3 edit is almost a point in their favour for the large installed base of people who haven't moved to widescreen TVs yet. If he watches a DVD, he either wastes half of his screen or has it zoomed in a way that offers weird distortions.

Re:Almost completely agree

[Hal_Porter]

Pussy? Spending money on consumer electronics doesn't have the same effect though.

Re:Almost completely agree

[neomunk]

To compensate for small penises?

Re:Almost completely agree

[debest]

You're spot on about quality - my parents made do for years with a standard TV that had a messed up horizontal - everything was stretched so wide that by setting the DVD player to thinking it was trying to dispay standard width on a widescreen using bars was just right.

Hmm... you may have touched upon why I don't care so much about the quality, as well. I grew up in rural northern Ontario. No digital satellites yet, only a few adventurous types purchased BUDs (big ugly dishes). My family had a grand total of four channels to choose from (until digital satellite came in the mid-90's). This was via two antennas on the roof: one for the two Canadian signals, one for the two American signals. In addition, we didn't even bother getting a colour TV until 1989!

To me, DVD is still way better quality than I think is necessary. My background probably explains why this is so.

Re:Almost completely agree

[justin12345]

I was in Best Buy returning some Christmas presents, and I sat down and watched a Blu-Ray copy of the new Pirates of the Caribbean. I sat there for maybe 5 minutes while I screwed with the audio settings and tried out different speakers. During that time, no less then 3 different people walked up and said "that looks fake" or "that looks so real that it looks fake". They were right, the quality of the picture was so high that you could see the every little unintentional gesture the actors made, every little imperfection in the props. Instead of suspending your disbelief, the format makes it painfully clear that your watching a bunch of dudes in costume recite lines. Instead of the Hollywood "larger then life" feeling, you got "I'm watching a bad play" (not that I have anything against plays, I just prefer to see them in person).

It seems to me that people care more about content portability then they care about image quality. For instance, my mother can't live without her Tivo, and I can't live without my server. I don't think she is even considering moving to HD, and I certainly won't be until I buy a player accidently.

Re:Almost completely agree

[Jeremy Erwin]

There's wastage either way.

Either some of the scanlines are wasted showing back bars. Boo fucking hoo.

Or

The cinematographic effects, the mood, the artistry of the movie is wasted as continuous shots are broken down into pans and scans or secondary elements of the frame are thrown away on the telecine floor. This is a serious matter indeed.

Re:Almost completely agree

[debest]

In other news, a $13000 Hyundai gets me from point A to point B just as well as a $43000 BMW. Why on Earth are people buying those BMW's???! It's craziness!

Of course a BMW is a better car than a Hyundai, just as HD-DVD/Blu-ray are better than DVD. Most people don't care about that, either. They can't justify the benefits, given the increased cost. From 2006 sales figures, Hyundai sold 455,012 cars, while BMW sold 274,432. Seems more people, by your own example, agree with me.

Re:Almost completely agree

[Entropius]

That's something I never understood. Paying $lots of a TV means you're at least getting something that *does* something -- in this case, shows a giant picture. Some people (me, you possibly) don't want this; some people do want it.

But what exactly do you get that you didn't have before if you pay $43k for a BMW? What does a luxury car *do* that your Hyundai won't? Heck, they're not even more reliable these days -- iirc a little Toyota Yaris ($11-12k) has a longer life expectancy than some of those beemers and Audis and things.

Re:Almost completely agree

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't people complain about this "bad play" thing when it comes to watching film in the theater? If anything, there is more detail in that film print than on a high-def version of the movie on television.

Re:Almost completely agree

[jandrese]

Really? Because I've seen that disc (it was for King Arthur or something) and while you could tell which side was the HD side, from a normal living room distance the difference was marginal at best. It was actually that disc that convinced me not to bother with the HD stuff for awhile.

Re:Almost completely agree

[a-zarkon!]

About a year ago I picked up a Sony HD 34" 16:9 CRT(trinitron Wega) flat screen television. I paid somewhere between $800-900 for it. The picture easily beats any LCD I've seen so far. The only downside I can come up with is that it is huge, weighs about 200 lbs, and probably sucks down more electricity than an LCD. On the upside - the picture is amazing, and the television represents what I assume to be the pinnacle of manufacturing from one of the leading companies in CRT televisions. Unfortunately I believe Sony has completely stopped manufacturing tube-based TVs. Hopefully this one lasts for a decade so the LCD technology can catch up as the price continues to drop.

Re:Almost completely agree

[Dun Malg]

the quality of the picture was so high that you could see the every little unintentional gesture the actors made, every little imperfection in the props. Instead of suspending your disbelief, the format makes it painfully clear that your watching a bunch of dudes in costume recite lines. Yeah, I remember watching Star Wars Ep1 in one of the theaters that were using digital projectors. You could see the spirit gum holding on the fake hair at the edge of Liam Neeson's hairline.

Re:Almost completely agree

[ssstraub]

But what exactly do you get that you didn't have before if you pay $43k for a BMW? What does a luxury car *do* that your Hyundai won't

Not a car person, eh? This is the equivalent of a non-computer person asking "why would you spend $2,500 on a desktop computer you put together yourself when you can just go to Wal-Mart and buy a pre-assembled computer for $200?" I mean all computers do basically the same thing, right?

BTW, the BMW web site is happy to go into great detail on what your extra money will get you. I suggest reading up on it if your at all interested in mechanical engineering.

Re:Almost completely agree

[RightSaidFred99]

I do agree with you, it's just a rather obvious observation. People who can afford nicer things will tend to buy them at a lower point in the perceived value/cost ratio. A few years ago I decided I could afford a nice 60" TV, and a little under a year ago I sprung for a $190 Xbox 360 HD drive because I could afford what is, as you imply, a luxury purchase. For the record, I definitely don't own a BMW as the luxury value isn't worth enough for me to spring the money.

It's kind of like the market for $500 video cards (or multiple $500 video cards on one motherboard). I sure as hell am not spending e.g. $1000 on video cards alone, but to people with the money it's apparently worth it.

Re:Almost completely agree

[RightSaidFred99]

Creature comforts, performance, stylng, and of course the brand value. For those inclined to treat a car like an investment, they also hold their value much better but you're still probably going to lose more than the entire value of the Yaris the minute you drive it off the lot, so that's mostly a moot point.

As you mention, the added maintenance costs involved with a BMW would make the "real" price even higher. I'd love to have one, but the overall cost (purchase + maintenance) just too much. I'd stick with e.g. Lexus/Infiniti class cars instead - 90% of the benefits at a much lower overall cost, but I'm rambling.

Re:Almost completely agree

[Anonymous Psychopath]

Speaking from personal experience, one thing a BMW will get you is about $3,000 a year in repair bills once the pre-paid maintenance runs out (this was last year, on a 2002 X5). Look up the stats yourself, the German brands are not recognized for reliability. They feel nice to drive, though, and they have excellent resale value. Whether or not that's worth the price premium you pay is up to you. The X5 was replaced with an Acura RL.

Back on topic, I'm one of those who would sure like to upgrade to HD disc-based content but don't want to invest while the format war rages. When good quality dual-format players get into the $300 range, I'll buy. Until then they can go have their little war without my money as cannon fodder.

Re:Almost completely agree

[fuzzylollipop]

actually a 32" 16:9 aspect TV is going to be LESS screen estate than a 32" 4:3. Since they are measured on the diagonal, you have to go UP in size to get the same size picture since the Vertical measured area is going to drop a substantial amount with 16:9 aspect ratio.

Re:Almost completely agree

[Steve001]

Jonny_eh wrote:

Boo on VHS! Most of the movies on that format are Pan and Scan!
The greatest thing DVD did for home video was making letterbox/anamorphic widescreen mainstream.

Actually, laserdisc (LD) preceeded DVD in providing widescreen movies and was one of the reasons I went with that format (about 10 years before the introduction of DVD). One reason that widescreen wasn't practical on VHS was due to its relatively low video resolution. One time I rented a widescreen movie in VHS and in many of the wide-shot scenes the image was so unclear that it was hard to tell who was who.

Another reason I went with LD, and this has been carried over to DVD, is multiple soundtracks and subtitles (an LD could contain up to four different soundtracks). I'm a fan of anime and one of the best things about LD (and this has been continued with DVD) is that I can watch a program with a Japanese soundtrack, or with a Japanese soundtrack with English subtitles, or with an English soundtrack, all on the same disc. In the VHS and Beta days, I had to choose either Japanese with English subtitles, or dubbed into English, with the dubbed version often being more expensive.

Returning to the topic of sitting out the HD format war, I'm one of the sitters. When the format war started, I made a decision to wait until at least 2 years after a winner is declared before I consider choose a HD player because, right now, standard DVD is good enough and I don't feel like ending up going with another losing format (I supported both Digital Compact Cassette and CD-I). Also, based on what I've seen already, I doubt any future HD format is going to be as freely usable as standard DVD is right now.

Re:Almost completely agree

[Buran]

I love my VW GTI and this is my 3rd VW. Never had a problem with the previous two. Cars tend to be OK as long as you take good care of them unless you have the bad luck to get a lemon (which unfortunately does happen, even with Hondas like the one you have).

It's a real shame that none of the Japanese automakers have managed to hire some of the good designers from the German builders to get that famous reliability combined with that famous usability.

They'd have a hit for sure.

Re:Almost completely agree

[SteveWB]

In still other news, a $10,000 used BMW is a lot more fun to drive and gets me from point A to point B with far more performance and comfort than a $13,000 new Hyundai. Why on Earth are people buying brand new cars???! It's craziness!

Re:Almost completely agree

[UbuntuDupe]

Interesting perspective, I hadn't heard it explained like that before. I hope you get modded up.

I had sort of a similar experience in the shift from CRT to LCD on my computer monitor. Basically, the CRT smoothed away a lot of ugly pixellation that showed up on LCD.

Re:Almost completely agree

[roc97007]

> In other news, a $13000 Hyundai gets me from point A to point B just as well as a $43000 BMW. Why on Earth are people buying those BMW's???! It's craziness!

Bleh. A much better parallel would be a 2008 Hyundai compared to a 1998 Hyundai, where both cars cost about the same in inflation-adjusted dollars at the time of purchase. Sure, the new one is shiny and probably goes faster and doesn't rattle as much and the stereo is a little nicer, but in ten years, it'll still be a 2008 Hyundai.

Re:Almost completely agree

[flappinbooger]

I can't believe none of your replies noted the fact that while both the Hyundai and the BMW will get you from A to B, they are also BOTH compatible with ALL roads.

Re:Almost completely agree

[mpe]

Although there may be some that can't tell the difference in quality, I think a far larger proportion of people just don't care about the increase in quality (myself included). I've seen demos in stores. I've seen a Sony disc that tries to show the difference side-by-side on the same movie (splitting the screen of a scene to show the left side as DVD and the other as Blu-Ray). Yeah, it's way better, but I don't give a crap! I don't have the cash, or the desire, to upgrade my television.

This is one of the major issues, in order for you to even have a chance of seeing any difference in picture quality you need to spend a lot of money buying new hardware. Whereas in the case of changing from VHS to DVD generally all you needed to buy was one machine.

DVD is good enough for me, and will be for a long, long time. I do not have interest in paying one cent more for the better quality video.

Which also has the additional "cost" of more DRM. No doubt more viewer annoyance along the "you must watch this" theme too.

Re:Almost completely agree

[mpe]

I don't know about the US, but here in the UK a lot of TVs are still 4:3. Most people upgrade their television around once a decade (if that) and even three years ago when my stepfather bought the new one the 4:3 was a lot cheaper than 16:9 (and most TV was still broadcast in 4:3).

It's also interesting that the cost of a TV with a "digital tuner" is often considerably more than one without plus an external box...

Re:Almost completely agree

[Jeremy Erwin]

The resolution of the eye is 1.054 arcminutes. Simple trigonometry should allow you to calculate the enormity of the screen required to display 1080p/i at its best.

Of course, you could sit closer to the screen.

Re:Almost completely agree

[tm2b]

Nicholas Negroponte has a concise way of describing this: people do not say "the resolution is really crappy tonight," they say "there's nothing good on TV to watch tonight."

Re:Almost completely agree

[coaxial]

You're right that people just don't care. It's the same reason why HDTV has been slow on the uptake. People don't care. I have a 1080p hdtv, and yeah you can tell a difference between SD and HD content on it, but you know what? It's an LCD. A lot of it is artifacts from not running at the natural resolution. There's noise in the signal you can see. And you know what? Run that same signal on a CRT SD set, and you don't notice it. The phosphors mask the noise by their slower refresh rate, and the phosphors blur together enough that the screen looks fine.

An SD signal on an LCD looks like crap. SD on a CRT, which let's face it, is what it was designed for, looks perfectly fine. There's nothing wrong with that signal.

This whole HDTV migration has reeked of a scam from the very beginning. If people wanted to the new format, they wouldn't need the government to coerce them into spending hundreds of dollars on a new tv. They'd do it themselves. Just like how people switched from black and white to color sets, or from AM to FM radios, or landline to cellphones.

Re:Almost completely agree

[bclark]

Great point, and this is actually one of the draws for the hi-def formats for me. Absolutely every film released in either format has been in the original aspect ratio, including a number of films (some of Kubrick's in particular) that haven't been available that way since they were in theatres. It's very depressing to see half the new release DVDs at Blockbuster in "Full Screen". I think they should place a (skippable) clip explaining the difference into all new DVD releases along with the trailers (maybe using that famous Ben Hur chariot race footage) to educate the masses as to what they're missing with pan'n'scan.

Re:Almost completely agree

[noidentity]

DVD is good enough for me, and will be for a long, long time. I do not have interest in paying one cent more for the better quality video.

Just wait until they start making crappier DVD releases of things, kind of like how CDs mastering today is inferior to that of a decade ago. Even current DVD picture quality varies greatly, with some being really sharp (component video on a 27" Trinitron TV) and others being lousy.

Re:Almost completely agree

[jandrese]

That's not really the point though. My enjoyment of the content wasn't greatly enhanced by the increased resolution offered by the HD disc, at least not enough to justify $1500 (set + player + audio + etc...). I could see the difference, but the increased resolution didn't really look that much better, just a bit more crisp and showing more detail. You could more easily see stuff like individual gems on the King's crown, but I wasn't watching the movie to count the gems and it seemed like maybe a bit of overkill. It's not like the VHS days when faces would get muddy enough that it was hard to read expressions (especially on older tapes).

I think anybody expecting a repeat of the tremendous success of DVD with these new HD titles really hasn't looked at the big picture. Sure DVDs had better picture quality than VHS tapes, but that was but one of their many advantages (near instant seeking, no rewinding, fit more on a shelf, considerably reduced price (VHS movies were more expensive than DVD movies, especially when adjusted for inflation, thanks to the labor intensive dubbing process), extras, and more. The only additional feature on HD discs of both types is more obnoxious DRM.

Re:Almost completely agree

[Chris Mattern]

Yep, it is. I'm very happy with my $13000 Hyundai. It's run well and hasn't given me a lick of trouble for over a year now. You'll have to ask those other guys why they spent over three times as much, because I can't tell you.

Chris Mattern

Re:Almost completely agree

[robogun]

Could it be that, like it or not, people judge how well you are doing on what you are seen driving?

Re:Almost completely agree

[RightSaidFred99]

Absolutely, but that wasn't really my point. I'm saying that some people have the money and the inclination to spend money on "luxury" items despite the law of diminishing returns when the luxury item is compared to a less expensive item of similar functionality. So say I can get a Widget for $5. For $40 I can get a SupaDupaWidget that performs 20% better. I've paid 8x the price for 120% the performance. For some people, this is fine and they're willing to do that. Nothing stupid or wrong with that.

Re:Almost completely agree

[triffid_98]

Exactly. All HDTV does is drive the costs of production up. This means more lame reality tv(/gameshows/etc where there is no added cost) and fewer production studios willing to take chances on anything remotely innovative since the cost of failure is now that much higher.
Lets not even get into the decades of VHS quality footage that isn't improved in the slightest by HD.

the quality of the picture was so high that you could see the every little unintentional gesture the actors made, every little imperfection in the props. Instead of suspending your disbelief, the format makes it painfully clear that your watching a bunch of dudes in costume recite lines.

Yeah, I remember watching Star Wars Ep1 in one of the theaters that were using digital projectors. You could see the spirit gum holding on the fake hair at the edge of Liam Neeson's hairline.

Re:Almost completely agree

[Pseudonym]

That's also a good point: DVD didn't require you to upgrade your TV set. The high def formats effectively do.

Re:Almost completely agree

[jotok]

There is a word for this: capitalism.

Of the (relatively minor) segment of the population who can discern the difference in audio or video, there is an even smaller portion for whom the difference is worth the extra cost.

So the price will have to come down for people to buy it. If a blu-ray player was only $100 more than a regular DVD player, then I'd already have one. I can easily afford $1000 for a gadget, I just don't want it at that price.

Re:Almost completely agree

[toddestan]

It's a real shame that none of the Japanese automakers have managed to hire some of the good designers from the German builders to get that famous reliability combined with that famous usability.

They'd have a hit for sure.

Yeah, I'm sure the sheer ugliness of the latest Japanese cars combined with the terrible iDrive system would be a huge hit. Wait, what were you saying?

Re:Almost completely agree

[toddestan]

Maybe because that $13,000 Hyundai is going to be somewhat reliable, and will have a nice warranty attached to it, while a $10,000 BMW is going to break down constantly requiring expensive service and its warranty period has long expired?

Re:Almost completely agree

[CodeBuster]

OR they want the BMW, but realizing that they simply cannot afford it, they settle for the Hyundai instead. The decision to purchase one product over another cannot be taken as proof positive that the consumer necessarily absolutely preferred one product over a similar one, but rather that given the circumstances the consumer chose or was forced to chose one over the other.

Re:Almost completely agree

[uvajed_ekil]

I tend to watch most DVDs on my laptop these days. I upgrade roughly every three years, so in two years I might end up with a BD or HD-DVD drive. At that point, I might start watching movies on whichever format the drive supports. I don't buy DVDs anymore though, I only ever rent them.

I bought a Toshiba laptop recently, and it happened to come with a combo drive that plays HD-DVDs. I didn't buy it for this fact, since I don't quite understand how HD movies will look much better than regular DVDs on a 17" screen. For a home theater setup with a BIG freakin screen it might make sense, but I've watched two HD movies and wasn't blown away. Sure, they looked nice, but no so much better than DVDs on such a relatively small screen that I would pay extra for them. I could not really tell the difference. If I bought movies (I don't) I sure wouldn't be buying HD DVDs. I think for most of us this would be a wasteful, pointless upgrade.

If I suddenly find myself with more money than I can spend, I will retract the above statements.

Re:Almost completely agree

[SageMusings]

Spot-on observation! I know exactly what you mean. This is exactly the same sort of "cheap" feel you can get watching a video-taped low-budget show on late night cable vs the softer, warmer feel of a filmed program.

Now I love to watch the Discovery channel in HD and really see the all the nuances of an southeast Asian market but would rather hide the starkness of it all when viewing a drama. I know this last one is stretching it a bit but the same principal sort of applies to photographs vs paintings. We don't like to put Polaroids of fields on the wall but enjoy paintings of landscapes very much.

Re:Almost completely agree

[operagost]

Plasma will match, if not exceed, the quality of a CRT. Unfortunately, plasma is also daggone heavy.

Re:Almost completely agree

[kklein]

I pooh-poohed HDTV until I got an Xbox 360 and realized that gaming was going to suck on it without it. I really like it.

That being said, as for regular TV goes, I'm still just watching SDTV. The image on the new TV is brighter and better looking than our old TV, and although the HD content would be nice, it wouldn't be nice enough to fuss with the cost and this card thing and all that crap. I've never complained about the quality of TV images, and certainly not about DVD, so why would I go to a bunch of trouble to fix a problem that doesn't exist? I watch TV and movies for the content. The story. Making a better resolution screen is like upgrading the paper in a novel. Yeah, it's nice, but when you're wrapped up in the tale being spun, the last thing you're going to care about is the paper.

It's different for games, though, where you're expected to interact with what's onscreen.

I'll be happy to join the HD movie and broadcast fray when it costs the same as what I have (and like) now. In the meantime, I still really like my TV. Battlestar Galactica is just as well-written in SD as HD, so what's the harm?

Re:Almost completely agree

[Buran]

At least that Windows Mobile crap is an option, not standard, at least as ar as I know.

Re:Almost completely agree

[justin12345]

I'm not sure. Maybe its a matter of how often your eye has to move to take in all the information. One way or another, the theater feels lower def then watching it on a 50" HD screen.

Re:Almost completely agree

[SteveWB]

Maybe, but if so, they might be making an incorrect assumption about the reliability of BMWs or of used cars in general.

Speaking of BMWs specifically, I bought a used 1996 3-Series several years ago for $10,000 with 108,000 miles. It now has over 150,000, and that includes about 5 weekends of hard driving at a race track (as well as my usual daily abuse). It's been very reliable, with only a few minor and inexpensive repairs required, nearly all of which I've been able to fix myself. As a member of the BMW CCA, I know many other people with older, high-mileage BMWs (many of which are similarly abused at the track) and can vouch that these are very reliable cars. Now, the current models, I don't know ... ever since they introduced iDrive, reliability seems to have taken a nose-dive. But the previous generation and earlier cars (especially the 3 Series) are pretty reliable.

Of course, if you really want reliablility, you could always go with a used Honda or Toyata. Either one would be significantly cheaper than a either a used BMW of similar age and mileage or a brand new Hyundai, and either is also likely to be a lot more reliable than the new Hyandai or used BMW. True, there may not be a warranty, but if the car rarely breaks, who really needs one? Most things that do break aren't going to leave you stranded, and even with repairs, you'll almost always end up spending a lot less money on a used car. Insurance is less, too.

I used to think I wanted to someday own a brand new car, but now that just seems stupid. Provided you do your homework and shop around, buying used gets you a much nicer car for much less money with few or no disadvantages.

Re:Almost completely agree

[mjpaci]

I thought Kubrick shot in full frame and then matted it before release into the theaters -- essentially the full frame release of his films had more info than the letterboxed versions.

Re:Almost completely agree

[Moofie]

What you mean "we"? I have more Ansel Adams prints than painted landscapes...

Re:Almost completely agree

[Gulthek]

Obviously Negroponte has never dealt with picking up cable channels with an antenna.

"Damn the picture is fuzzy today!"

Re:Almost completely agree

[Firethorn]

I know that, but was going on the basis that a 32" widescreen LCD is at least within the size category I'd require of a replacement.

32" 4:3 484.5 in^2
32" 16:9 437.5 in^2

So a 16:9 screen would have 90% of the actual screen of a 4:3. They look large enough in the store, at least.

Re:Almost completely agree

[Firethorn]

And a power hog possibly even over that of a CRT.

We used to have a status screen setup at work that used 4 plasmas - if you were cold you just had to stand in front of them.

Re:Almost completely agree

[Floritard]

Speaking of demos in stores, am I the only one that thinks HD makes the content look shittier? I look at it and I see all the compression artifacts (that squared glass look around edges and during high-motion) that I normally don't see on a regular TV. I'd rather see a smoother, lower resolution image than what I've seen in these store demos.

One company could change everything:

[MtViewGuy]

Disney.

Disney's DVD retail business is quite profitable, and they sell a LOT of DVD's for the family market, especially given the large number of animated features Disney has done since Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs in 1937. While Disney is firmly in the Blu-Ray camp right now, I'm sure they are aware of the rapid drop in the price of HD-DVD players and they could easily jump into the HD-DVD market (my guess in around six months). Since most HD-DVD discs are encoded with the VC-1 or AVC (H.264) format, there is no real need to use the extra capacity of Blu-Ray discs, and with the new 51 GB triple-layer discs, HD-DVD has erased the Blu-Ray 50 GB storage capacity advantage.

Besides Disney, if Toshiba can lower the licensing fees for the HD-DVD format, that could interest companies now selling only Blu-Ray discs to support HD-DVD. After all, it was the generous licensing requirements for VHS that allowed VHS to overtake Sony's Beta format, and Toshiba could easily do the same against the Sony-supported Blu-Ray format. We will find out what happens at the Consumer Electronics Show in January 2008 which side will take the initiative to expand its presence.

By the way, don't expect people to download high-definition movies on a large scale until broadband speeds become vastly faster than now; downloading a single movie that could be as large as 15 GB is a pretty daunting task even with Verizon's FIOS fiber-optic broadband system.

Re:One company could change everything:

[Anonymous Coward]

By the way, don't expect people to download high-definition movies on a large scale until broadband speeds become vastly faster than now; downloading a single movie that could be as large as 15 GB is a pretty daunting task even with Verizon's FIOS fiber-optic broadband system.

You're talking out your ass, mate. HD movies using h.264 can already be downloaded, they're around 7GB. That's well under 2 hours on my 20/20 FiOS connection. Not as good as watching the real deal on blu-ray, but still vastly better than DVD.

Now think about countries that have far better internet connections. 100/100mbps is pretty common now, and both Japan and Korea are starting to role out 1gbps home connections.

Re:One company could change everything:

[Gravatron]

Whats to stop the blu-ray camp from releasing tripple or quad layer disks? Nothing. Heck, didn't they annouce early on they had a 100gb disk in test? The HD-DVD advantage is brief, and at the moment, irrelevant, as those disks aren't on the market and won't be for some time. In the meantime, BD still has the sales, studio, and capacity advantages.

The only reason HDDVD is even in the fight still is Ms's buying off of studios, which they can't support forever.

Re:One company could change everything:

[thomas.galvin]

Disney. Vivid.

Re:One company could change everything:

[disappear]

Translation: If several counterfactual events occur, something might happen.

Counterfactual #1: Disney leaving the Blu-Ray camp. Given the huge investment that Disney's made in Blu-Ray, and given the absence of reason to switch, there doesn't seem like any reason to believe this.

Counterfactual #2: HD-DVD price drops more rapid than Blu-Ray price drops. Actually, I just went through this, and after two days of agonizing I bought Blu-Ray. In part, the $50 difference between the two (on Amazon.com) helped cement that decision. In the future, if the price gap as a percentage stays the same, the difference in player cost is likely to hit $25 or less.

Counterfactual #3: HD-DVD will catch up to Blu-Ray in capacity. Sure, triple-layer HD-DVDs are coming. So are triple-layer Blu-Ray discs, which will once again cause Blu-Ray capacity to blow away HD-DVD. Kinda funny, if "there's no real need to use the extra capacity of Blu-Ray discs." (Have you ever had a disc that you haven't filled?)

Counterfactual #4: Toshiba has any intention of ever lowering HD-DVD license fees. That's their whole reason for pushing the new standard, actually.

Implied counterfactual #5: Sony blew it with Betamax, so they'll blow it again with Blu-Ray. Sure, it's possible. If Sony hasn't learned anything over the last thirty years, and if owning a movie studio and becoming a huge player in the "content" business haven't changed anything.

Re:One company could change everything:

[Anonymous Coward]

Who buys their porn on Disc anymore? Porn is already past the physical media stage I think. Given that anyone can find all the free porn they want now, or even buy just about any porn they want online.

Re:One company could change everything:

[MtViewGuy]

Implied counterfactual #5: Sony blew it with Betamax, so they'll blow it again with Blu-Ray. Sure, it's possible. If Sony hasn't learned anything over the last thirty years, and if owning a movie studio and becoming a huge player in the "content" business haven't changed anything.

If you've seen Sony's history of trying to "set" a standard, they haven't been exactly successful worldwide. Only the Compact Disc (which was essentially a refinement of the original Philips proposal) became a worldwide standard; the other standards Sony tried to push--Beta-format videotape for home use, MiniDisc, and now Blu-Ray disc--have not been exactly booming successes over the long run. In fact, the original DVD standard was a based mostly on Toshiba's SuperDensity Disc proposal from 1993; HD-DVD is essentially an evolution of that standard.

We will find out what each camp will do at the Consumer Electronics Show in a few weeks....

Upconversion sub$100? You get what you pay for.

[tji]

I picked up one of those cheap upconverter DVD players recently. I was a little skeptical, but I thought I would benefit from all the industry development, which pulls all the once exotic features down into the low end.

After using it for less than two days i boxed it up and went back to my 5 year old Panasonic RP56 Progressive Scan DVD player. The picture was much better on the RP56 than on the cheapie upconverter. The general usability and responsiveness was also much worse on the cheap upconverter.

Of course, my old RP56 died a week or two after bringing it out of retirement. Rather than getting another cheap one, I picked up an HD-DVD player instead. It was under $200, and does a much better job as an upconverter than the cheap one. The HD-DVD playback is also a nice side-benefit. I added that to my Netflix account, and now get HD-DVDs when available. (The one drawback of the HD-DVD player is that it is painfully slow at bootup and disc recognition)

But, my purchase was not really a show of support for the HD-DVD format, it was more of a stopgap until a real solution comes along.

Well

[ilovegeorgebush]

The average consumer would say the following.

Bluray: Why would I spend hundreds of pounds on a technology that would render my DVD collection (of around 100 DVDs) obsolete with no real gain? Will my TV be compatible?

HD-DVD: My existing collection is compatible, great. Now, let's look at the price....ouch.

I'm sitting it out until I can get a HD-DVD player from the web for less than 100 quid. Why do Sony insist on making formats that are incompatible with others? They've lost before (Mini-disc, which was a potentially excellent format), so I hope they'll lose again.

Re:Well

[stewbacca]

Doesn't the average consumer still cling to VHS tapes as being "good enough"?

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm...you do realize all Blu-ray players play standard DVD's right? Enough with the FUD.

Plus, with Blu-ray you get to choose a manufacturer. You can buy players from Sony, Pioneer, Panasonic, Samsung, etc.

With HD-DVD you can get a player from Toshiba and, um, Toshiba, and, let's see, Toshiba. Oh wait. I forgot you can get one from Venturer.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

Name one Blu-Ray player that doesn't play DVDs. If you can do this, I won't assume you're full of shit.

Re:Well

[wed128]

Actually no, VHS tapes wear out, and people know this. Also, DVD players are cheap.

Re:Well

[bilbravo]

I had to comment on this just to set things straight. Blu-Ray does not render your DVD collection useless anymore than HD-DVD does... why? Because both play DVDs. HD-DVD is simply a moniker for the new format because it is part of the DVD consortium.

Repeat: Blu-Ray players play DVDs just the same as HD-DVD players do. The only imcompatibility is that Blu-Ray players will not play HD-DVD and HD-DVD will not player Blu-Ray.

My apologies if this is not what you meant, but it is how I read it and want to avoid others making the same mistake.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you missed the FIRST sentence in his post: "The average consumer would say the following."

ilovegeorgebush is well aware that BD players can play standard DVDs. What he's saying is that the average consumer might not be aware of it.

Re:Well

[unapersson]

Bluray: Why would I spend hundreds of pounds on a technology that would render my DVD collection (of around 100 DVDs) obsolete with no real gain? Will my TV be compatible?

Your DVDs will still work in the blu-ray player, so why would they be magically obsolete? I've watched plenty of DVDs in my PS3, in fact it's now our main DVD player as the old one was on the verge of dying.

Re:Well

[jedidiah]

...sure, that makes a lot of sense: spend $800 just so you can watch all of your lame old movies.

The whole point of these HD formats is they are supposed to make you think that all of your old DVD's should be thrown out in the trash so that you can go down to best buy and go on a spending spree.

If you don't think that the old DVD's need to go in the trash then there is really no good reason to bother with either format at this point. That's rather the point.

If the old DVD library is still good, then all of this HD BS is well... BS.

Re:Well

[bilbravo]

Maybe you missed my LAST sentence then: "My apologies if this is not what you meant, but it is how I read it and want to avoid others making the same mistake." :-)

No worries.

Re:Well

[Echo_42]

you do get to choose your manufacturer with blu-ray. Sony PS3 - $400 Pioneer, Sony Stand Alone, Panasonic - etc - $500 or so each with HD DVD you dont get to choose, its toshiba right now and thats it Toshiba HD DVD player - $100 online. $200 in stores. other models up to $300 or $400. still think you're better off if you're gonna go for one, even though theres only one manufacturer, its one manufacturer at 1/4 of the price.

Sodding PS3

[Anonymous Coward]

Sony's attempts at shoe-horning the word(s?) "Blu-Ray" into every PS3 advert, whether needed enough, is enough to make me wait another year...

Only really big screens benefit

[bwintx]

The 30 December 2007 Dallas Morning News featured an informative letter (I can't find a link to an online version of the letter; sorry) replying to an earlier DMN article about the DVD format wars. One of the major points of the letter was that, essentially, unless one has a very large-screen HDTV, the upconversion of conventional DVDs is so good that it's not worth paying the premium of the HD-DVD or Blu-Ray disks. Unless the industry realizes it can't win while those higher prices exist, the vast majority of consumers will continue to say "regular" DVDs are good enough, thank you very much.

HD versus DVD

[Wowsers]

- HiDef is expensive... tick
- HiDef is fighting with HiDef*... tick
- HiDef for the average user gives no gain... tick
- HiDef cannot be (in theory) copied to your MP3 player to watch the movie on the player... tick
- For computers, HiDef only works on that abomination called Vista... tick
- HiDef disks (pressed or recordable) are expensive... tick
- One HiDef format is backed by Microsoft... tick
- Neither HiDef format has a "cool" name... tick

Now with all those ticks, let's all rush out and buy into the HD format.

Or, you could stick to what you have now, and rip** the DVD for your MP3 player to watch on, not have to get into the whole "this cable is not compatible with this type of HD content" crap, not get into "you machine thinks you're really a hacker and your new hardware has decided to offer you shitty vision" instead of what you paid for, not have to worry about full HD pixel ratios or interlaced / progressive video, and not have producers enforce region coding (cartel protection).

* I bought superior Betamax, don't want that kinda purchase again.
** in some places legally.

Re:HD versus DVD

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Something to keep in mind, HD-DVD has no region coding at all. It's also been cracked too.

Re:HD versus DVD

[random0xff]

Neither HiDef format has a "cool" name... tick Blu-ray is about as cool as it's gonna get for a disc based medium. It sounds like it could destroy planets.

Re:HD versus DVD

[evilviper]

- HiDef is expensive... tick

DVDs were expensive

- HiDef is fighting with HiDef*... tick

DVDs were fighting with S-VHS, Hi8/Digital8, DIVX, LaserDiscs, ED-Betamax, perhaps VCD/SVCD, and no doubt others. Not to mention VHS.

With the highdef war, the field is as closed as it has ever been. Even D-Theatre basically committed suicide before BluRay and HD-DVD came out.

HiDef cannot be (in theory) copied to your MP3 player to watch the movie on the player... tick

Neither could DVD.

- HiDef disks (pressed or recordable) are expensive... tick

DVDs were expensive.

- Neither HiDef format has a "cool" name... tick

You think "DVD" or "VHS" sounds cooler than BluRay (and "HD-DVD")?

not have to get into the whole "this cable is not compatible with this type of HD content" crap,

Lots of people had TVs with nothing but RF connectors when DVD players came out (without them). There were crates of RF converters in every single store that sold DVD players.

not get into "you machine thinks you're really a hacker and your new hardware has decided to offer you shitty vision"

Macrovision crapifying the quality prevented VCR pass-through with DVDs. Some TVs supposedly had problems as well.

not have to worry about full HD pixel ratios

DVD buyers had to deal with fullscreen / widescreen.

or interlaced / progressive video,

That makes such a trivial difference, an average person isn't going to see it, or care even if it was explained.

and not have producers enforce region coding (cartel protection).

DVDs have region coding as well. There are region-free players for DVD (despite ARCOS issues), just as there are for highdef.

Re:HD versus DVD

[SanityInAnarchy]

- HiDef is expensive... tick

If you already have the TV for it, HD-DVD players have gotten so cheap people are just using them for upscaling DVD players. And they do a better job of that than some MUCH more expensive DVD-only upscaling players.

- HiDef is fighting with HiDef*... tick

I'll give you that one -- the DVD format war is over, the HD format war is not.

- HiDef for the average user gives no gain... tick

Other than better picture quality and more features... wait a sec, what do you lose by going HD? Oh yeah, the ability to rip. How many people rip standard DVD?

- HiDef cannot be (in theory) copied to your MP3 player to watch the movie on the player... tick

Managed Copy gives you a legal way of doing that, in theory. In practice, both can be copied, though it is easier for DVD currently (since Managed Copy isn't out yet).

- For computers, HiDef only works on that abomination called Vista... tick

You're full of FUD. Works on XP. In fact, the Microsoft HD-DVD Interactivity Jumpstart Kit -- blech, what a mouthful -- ONLY runs on XP. Not 2K, not Vista.

- HiDef disks (pressed or recordable) are expensive... tick

You win that one, though HiDef discs -- no matter which format -- are available on Netflix, and similar.

- One HiDef format is backed by Microsoft... tick

Wow, that's a big reason not to do something. But hey, Microsoft backs HD-DVD. Sony controls Blu-Ray. Jury's out on which company is more evil.

- Neither HiDef format has a "cool" name... tick

You win that one.

So being generous, your winning arguments are: The format war is still going for HD, the discs themselves are more expensive, and neither format has a cool name.

Oh, and you brought up another point in my favor:

and not have producers enforce region coding (cartel protection).

Guess what? HD-DVDs do not have region coding! So, while it's legal to break the DVD region coding in some places, most places are still going to force that "you can change it five times" bullshit -- and on HD, the issue does not exist at all!

picture quality is not very important

[ScantilyClad]

picture quality is a way overblown feature. just as long as the picture is relatively clean of snow and other noise, extra pixels mean next to nothing to me. we're about to move to HDTV in about a year and so what! i'm perpectly content with TV quality as it stands in its current analog form, and i think most people are content too, as long as the quality is better than a youtube video. for example: i don't keep and movies in DVD format, i rip them to xvid or divx, that way i can store 6 or 7 in the same space of one DVD. good enough, it's not like i'm storing anything precious, it's only a movie.

Re:picture quality is not very important

[bwintx]

we're about to move to HDTV in about a year and so what!

Actually, it's just digital TV that will be mandated in the U.S. as of February, 2009. Certainly, a lot of it will be high-res, but that's not required. Otherwise, there'd be decades worth of old movies and TV reruns you'd never see on-air again -- although, depending on one's POV, that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

Re:picture quality is not very important

[stewbacca]

picture quality is a way overblown feature

Evidently, so is capitalization :-p

I don't really understand your comment though. Isn't picture quality the most important feature of a TV/video player? I mean, don't people buy TVs and video players to SEE content?

I suppose audio quality is way overblown for stereo systems and lens quality is way overblown for phothographic equipment?

A major advantage of HD TV and HD broadcasts is that the channels are broadcast in the correct ratio, so there is no stretched or boxed image. I suppose had they made HD broadcasts in the more square ratio, and HD TVs weren't wide-screen, I'd accept your premise that quality now is good enough. The problem is standard def tv on HD TVs looks horrible, because the HD TV can exploit the relative poor quality of the signal. I read here on slashdot that the #1 return reason for HD TVs was that standard def TV looks better on non-HD TVs.

Re:picture quality is not very important

[tymbow]

I was reading the The Death of High Fidelity article earlier and I'm wondering about a potential parallel here.

If we ignore the bullshit like DRM the real push seems to be about picture quality. From my admittedly anecdotal experiences a hell of a lot of people seem pretty happy to put up with poorer image quality by sourcing their films through downloads (legal or otherwise). They seem happy to put up with a loss of quality if it brings convenience (ignoring the "free" aspect for the present). As with arguably superior audio formats like SACD I could see that many people could not care less about the technically better hi-def formats. The want something they can rip and shove onto their iPods - not better images.

Then again, storage grows and CPUs get faster - maybe it's just too early. When we can easily rip Blueray and HD-DVD disks onto out 5TB iPods it may all be a moot discussion anyway.

Re:picture quality is not very important

[Anonymous Coward]

"picture quality is a way overblown feature."

The /. Cognitive Resonance Service (/.CRS) is now open for business, and one day early (before time, and under budget!). It accepts text from a person suffering from the effects of cognitive dissonance, and re-states it in a way that breaks the vicious brain-lock. As a test case, and our first public demonstration, we entered the above text into it, and here is what it produced:

I am too poor to own a HD monitor. Rather than get off my lazy ass, get a better paying job and earn the moolah to get one, I'll instead simply pretend I am too good for HD, rather than accept it is the other way around. Please excuse me while I stick my fingers into my ears. 'LA LA LA LA LA ....'

As we can see, a spectacular success! May there be many more in the future.

Re:picture quality is not very important

[igb]

Isn't picture quality the most important feature of a TV/video player?

No, unless you spend all day watching test cards. The most important thing about TV is content, and MASH at sub-VHS quality is still better than 90% of other programmes. Or did Sgt Bilko suddenly stop being funny the day colour TV arrived?

I suppose audio quality is way overblown for stereo systems

It is. Otherwise iPods would have failed: convenience and `good enough' win every time. and lens quality is way overblown for phothographic equipment? Indeed, every time someone buys a digital compact camera, lines per inch resolving power and flatness of field are their first priorities, and price, usability and convenience come way later.

Re:picture quality is not very important

[jedidiah]

Someone who doesn't want to squander money on some fancy TV is not
necessarily lacking in money. They may simply choose it in other ways.
They might even be the sorts to prefer ultra-high-resolution viewing
experiences like "actually being there".

      I think you have managed to capture the essence of the typical yuppie
suburbanite consumer: someone else has chosen not to buy into my particular
flavor of the month, therefore they must be defective in some manner.

      They haven't wasted enough money on their TV.
      They haven't wasted enough money on their digicam.

      HDTV's are absurdly overpriced at this point in time.
      They haven't wasted enough money on their car.
      They haven't wasted enough money on their house.
      They haven't wasted enough money on their shoes/purse/watch.

Re:picture quality is not very important

[stewbacca]

The most important thing about TV is content

Funny, in my 20 years of purchasing TVs, not one has ever come with content ;-)

But I agree, content is king...just the tv is only a conduit. And the rest of your examples expose that the bell curve determines features, not quality. Some of us, however, are concerned more with quality, and we have lots of money, so it would be stupid to discount our opinions.

Re:picture quality is not very important

[igb]

Some of us, however, are concerned more with quality, and we have lots of money, so it would be stupid to discount our opinions.

Up to a point, but it's not worth selling one box with a thousand dollar profit margin if that stops you from selling ten thousand boxes with a hundred dollar profit margin. And, for example, SACD vs DVD-A is a prime example of this: the energy and market confusion caused not merely a failure in its own right, but has knocked on into other markets. In many cases, your most loyal and affluent customers are the last people you should listen to: otherwise NAIM and Linn would have long surpassed Apple as the key audio vendor.

Re:picture quality is not very important

[stewbacca]

Up to a point, but it's not worth selling one box with a thousand dollar profit margin if that stops you from selling ten thousand boxes with a hundred dollar profit margin.

There are so many companies on Earth that cater to the one box/thousand dollar profit margin and don't ever care to sell ten thousand boxes. Yes they are niche markets, but markets none-the-less. If you turn it around, wouldn't it be easier to sell one box with a $5,000 profit margin then to sell 5,000 boxes with a $1 profit margin?

Re:picture quality is not very important

[DragonWriter]

picture quality is a way overblown feature. just as long as the picture is relatively clean of snow and other noise, extra pixels mean next to nothing to me.

You aren't the whole market.

we're about to move to HDTV in about a year and so what!

Only in that ATSC equipment must receive HD-resolution digital signals (among others). But it doesn't have to display in HD-resolution, and broadcasts can be 480i so long as they are ATSC digital broadcasts.

Re:picture quality is not very important

[tepples]

The problem is standard def tv on HD TVs looks horrible, because the HD TV can exploit the relative poor quality of the signal. I read here on slashdot that the #1 return reason for HD TVs was that standard def TV looks better on non-HD TVs. Shitty upscalers. Perhaps HDTV makers need to add a mode to the upscaler that emulates the interlace of an SDTV monitor, turning alternate scanlines black in alternate fields. It might provide a more familiar experience for users of analog cable TV, VHS tapes, and video game consoles from the PS2 era or earlier.

The article might be a little late..

[tjstork]

I mean, how many PS3's sold for xmas? Costco is selling 1080p TVs for $1000. I think 2008 is going to be the tipping point for a lot of people.

Re:The article might be a little late..

[Gothic_Walrus]

I mean, how many PS3's sold for xmas? How many Xbox 360s sold for Christmas? Yes, the HD-DVD component is sold separately for the system but since it's less than $200 and has been bundled with ridiculous amounts of free content (at one point last year, Best Buy was offering the first season of Heroes and seven movies) it's a very attractive purchase.

I wouldn't assume that Blu-Ray is going to win because of the PS3. Everything I've seen indicates that the PS3 is still in last place among the current consoles, and I think it's still too early to declare either format a winner when they're both still minorities compared to plain old DVDs.

Re:The article might be a little late..

[Geoff]

How many people bought a PS3 to watch a Blu-Ray movie? Very, very few, I'd imagine.

Re:The article might be a little late..

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right for TVs, yes. Players, no.

Look, my TV could use an upgrade. If it dies, I'll be getting a 1080p TV of some kind. But if I have an upconverting DVD player, it's good enough to drive it, and without most of the hassles and limitations of true HD formats. I have zero interest in an HD format player that may go the way of betamax, and, no, I don't want a PS3.

Re:The article might be a little late..

[Mr2001]

$1000 is still way more than most consumers spent on the TVs they already have. The "tipping point" will be when you can get a living-room-sized HD set (which, for 16:9, is 32 inches or larger) for around $300.

And even then, it might be a hard sell unless scaling has gotten better or basic cable channels have upgraded to HD. People still watch channels like Comedy Central, Cartoon Network, etc., and those channels look like blocky, blurry crap on a lot of HD sets.

Movies, schmovies

[TeknoHog]

I could use a 25 GB recordable format. It's not just a slight incremental upgrade from 4.7 GB DVDs.

The new formats are a reason why I decided against upgrading my 4-year old PATA DVD burner -- there's little point in buying a slightly faster drive for the same old format. I'm waiting for Blu-ray burners to become a little more affordable and ubiquitous.

Re:Movies, schmovies

[Hymer]

I've got 70 GB recordable (format called DLT)... and there are up to 800 GB available.
Just forget the disc and look at tapes. ;-) ...at least when you need long term backup, and it is fast and reliable.
I wonder if I can use my old DLT-drive with my Linux media center to get video recording/playback...

looks like the war is over to me...

[Anonymous Coward]

• Blu-ray player sales dominate HD DVD, 3 to 1
• Latest Japanese data shows Blu-ray outsells HD-DVD 9:1
• Blu-ray outselling HD DVD 2 to 1 this year
• Blu-ray Winning Europe 4-to-1
• Sony claims Blu-ray had 95% Australian HD market in October
• Blu-ray Dominates HD- DVD in Holiday shopping
• Disc Sales: 'Pirates' Leads Blu-ray to Decisive Weekly Win Over HD DVD
• PS3 to Go Blu-ray Profile 1.1 With New Firmware Update
• Blu-Ray Wins a Battle in the High-Def War

Re:looks like the war is over to me...

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing that you're not mentioning is that regular DVD's still outsell both HD formats combined by 50:1. People don't seem to be convinced that HD is worthwhile, and in that scenario the long, lazy upgrade path to HD-DVD is still the more likely one, provided the manufacturers get off their behinds and start replacing DVD drives across the board with HD-DVD. If they don't, they run the risk that HD may not take over for a great many years yet, unless people start loss-leading on HD disks.

Amazon has Toshiba HD-A30 for less than $250.00

[trailerparkcassanova]

It's 1080P plus you get 10 free HD-DVDs.

DVDs are cheap HD-DVD/Blue-ray is not

[Anonymous Coward]

The DVD bargain bins are overflowing whit movies for 47sek (~$3) and 3 for 200sek (~$15) High-def moves starts at 300sek and up. It's ironic how the price of a DVD now is the price i was begging for all along while the the high-def now at the same price point as DVD was in the begining. Why not have a realisitic price model?

Who wants to buy a betamax?

[ari{Dal}]

Of course people are sitting this one out - no one wants to be the sucker who pays twice over for their HD movies.

They briefly mention the Betamax vs. VHS format war of the 80s in the article. I was around for that particular battle, and I remember my dad coming home with a brand new, shiny, expensive betamax machine. Six months later, it was obsolete and we couldn't find videotapes for the damned thing, so we had to go buy another brand new, shiny, expensive VHS machine.

Who wants to spend a small fortune on a Blu-Ray machine and upgrade their DVDs only to have HD-DVD take over a year from now (or vice versa) and have to repeat it all over again? Screw that noise - I'll stick to plain old DVDs til they get this mess sorted out.

People said the same thing about DVD ten years ago

[elrous0]

The standard DVDs offered a quantum leap in quality from the picture and sound of VHS videotape, and for many that was more than adequate.

I can remember people saying the exact same thing about DVD. "Joe Sixpack is perfectly happy with VHS. Why would he switch to DVD?" The difference this time isn't the improvement in quality (it's very real to anyone who isn't blind) but the format war that's confusing consumers.

Video quality output of High Definition is better

[lavalyn]

But it's still garbage-in, garbage-out.

If you're going to complain about how cookie-cutter movies these days are, then it behooves you to not give the labels any money until they... well... make something original.

It's worth it... at the right price.

[zdickinson]

I am an owner of a new Toshiba HD-A3. I got it on sale for $150, and I'm happy with it. If I had paid $300, not so much. New movies in true HD are really amazing, older movies released on HDDVD, are pretty good. The upscaling for standard DVDs is hit or miss. Pearl Harbor looked and sounded great, License to Wed was almost unwatchable. The new menu features are nice and so are the extras, but it's about the fourth thing I'd mention if at all. In determining HDDVD vs Blu Ray, price of the player was my only consideration. The content seemed about equal as did the quality. As I say the content is equal, and that is true, the ways to get that content are harder for HDDVD. I can buy of course, but to rent my only option is Netflix. Blockbuster is BluRay and our local Movie Gallery has no HD movies in either format. I did hear they will choose BluRay though. In summary, if some one gives you a player take it. It won't kill you.

Re:It's worth it... at the right price.

[Anonymous Coward]

If Pearl Harbor looked and sounded great, you have other, more pressing, psychological problems.

Locked room

[Skapare]

Put the CEO and top executives of Sony and Toshiba in a locked room with a water fountain and a single bathroom/toilet available. Slide pizza under the door every day with random toppings. Let them out only after they have decided which format is the one.

Re:Locked room

[Buelldozer]

It would be faster to have them meet in a room with a table but no chairs.

The adoption problems are manifold

[Phybersyk0]

The adoption problems are manifold:

1.) 16:9 widescreen displays are still not pervasive enough to warrant upgrades. (This will change in 2009 after analog broadcast is dead) (My 60 year old mom hates "those black bars" on the top and bottom of the 4:3 display - she's gonna freak when there are "those grey bars" on the sides!)

2.) Cost. Retailers are dumping fairly recent DVD's for as little as $5.00 per disc. HD-DVD & Blu-Ray are easily 6-7 times that.

3.) Format confusion. Blu-Ray is being marketed as "Blu-Ray HiDef" and HD-DVD's are also marketed as "HiDef" i.e. "Harry Potter & The Order of the Phoenix - on DVD and HiDef" (There isn't a Blu-Ray version available yet).

4.) HD-DVD has combo discs (i.e.: Harry Potter, above) that will work on current DVD players as well as HD players - this allows the consumer to continue to add to their library of movies, while defraying the cost of hardware upgrade into the future. Blu-Ray forces you into expensive gear NOW in order to watch the film you've just bought.

Some advice:
Until this shit gets sorted out, the people who currently have large libraries (i'm thinking 200+ DVD's) are not going to offload their old movies and upgrade their films to HD-DVD/Blu-Ray. It's time for those "Proof of Purchase" coupon-looking things in most DVD packages to be useful. Furthermore, If Sony wants to sell more BRD players they need to cut their costs in half and stop trying to bundle their PS3 console with the player. Not everybody wants to play video games. Microsoft hedged their bets and made the HD-DVD an add-on component, which, though not very attractive inside the t.v. cabinet, provides function for VERY low cost. (I got mine + Heroes Season 1 on HD-DVD for about $180)

Re:The adoption problems are manifold

[bilbravo]

Regarding number 3: WB is the only format-neutral studio right now, so they say "available in HiDef" to convey that the product can be purchased on HD-DVD or Blu-Ray. You mention that there is no Blu-Ray version available, and that is not true.

However, this example of your mistake simply amplifies your point. :-) (Note: You may have been using that as an example of what the average consumer would think ('Ah, it's only on HiDef--not Blu-Ray HiDef'), and maybe I missed that point... again, your point is made very well)). Hope I closed all my parentheses.

Re:The adoption problems are manifold

[Anonymous Coward]

Harry Potter OFTP is on blu-ray
http://www.amazon.com/Harry-Potter-Order-Phoenix-Blu-ray/dp/B000W7GFG4/ref=pd_bbs_9?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1199115377&sr=8-9

Re:The adoption problems are manifold

[Phybersyk0]

Duly noted.

*My* confusion comes from the fact that when the film was released, the Best Buy I frequent (West County, St. Louis, MO) had both the standard DVD and HD-DVD's on an island/shelf with the DVD on one side and the HD-DVD combo disc on the other. I don't have a Blu-Ray player so I didn't even bother to look in the Blu-Ray section.

This could be an accident. (The island only had two sides) or intentional. The HD-DVD section is closer to the front of the store than the Blu-Ray (which is on the same rack), however, the island of discs was staged between the movie section and the big-screen televisions.

I do not WANT to beleive there is implicit collusion between the studios/retailers to push one format over another. However, it would be foolish to think that retailers are not tired of the format competition themselves.

Re:The adoption problems are manifold

[evilviper]

1.) 16:9 widescreen displays are still not pervasive

1) Didn't stop DVDs

2.) Cost.

2) Didn't stop DVDs

4.) HD-DVD has combo discs [...] this allows the consumer to continue to add to their library of movies, while defraying the cost of hardware upgrade into the future.

Weren't you just complaining about how expensive HD-DVD discs are. So now you want people to buy DVDs that are 7X more expensive, so one day they might get better quality (or not at all, if Blu-ray takes off instead)?

Until this shit gets sorted out, the people who currently have large libraries (i'm thinking 200+ DVD's) are not going to offload their old movies and upgrade their films to HD-DVD/Blu-Ray.

This isn't VHS to DVD. There's absolutely, positively no reason to throw away your current collection of movies.

If you want to get a new movie in HighDef, you buy a player, and the movie you want... When you want to watch a movie you already have, you put the disc in, and hit "Play" and it miraculously "Just Works" (tm).

Re:The adoption problems are manifold

[SuperKendall]

16:9 widescreen displays are still not pervasive enough to warrant upgrades. (This will change in 2009 after analog broadcast is dead) (My 60 year old mom hates "those black bars" on the top and bottom of the 4:3 display - she's gonna freak when there are "those grey bars" on the sides!)

You mom might freak out at bars, but mine doesn't mind them at all and everyone I know likes seeing the real movie, not pan&scan - bars don't matter if your TV is large enough or viewing distance close enough.

2.) Cost. Retailers are dumping fairly recent DVD's for as little as $5.00 per disc. HD-DVD & Blu-Ray are easily 6-7 times that.

Kind of, but there are a lot of BOGO (buy one get one) sales, and half-off sales going for both formats now along with multiple discs with purchase deals. That brings the cost down to more like $14 or so, much better and not much more than DVD's for popular titles.

3.) Format confusion. Blu-Ray is being marketed as "Blu-Ray HiDef" and HD-DVD's are also marketed as "HiDef" i.e. "Harry Potter & The Order of the Phoenix - on DVD and HiDef" (There isn't a Blu-Ray version available yet).

As noted all the HP movies are out on both formats. Personally I think HD-DVD adds a lot more confusion because many people don't realize they need a new player for the format.

HD-DVD has combo discs (i.e.: Harry Potter, above) that will work on current DVD players as well as HD players - this allows the consumer to continue to add to their library of movies, while defraying the cost of hardware upgrade into the future. Blu-Ray forces you into expensive gear NOW in order to watch the film you've just bought.

For someone wary of the format war it allows you to pay $35 for a movie (instead of $10 or $15) to have support for something that may be obsolete later on. Plus they have had some issues playing at times...

Until this shit gets sorted out, the people who currently have large libraries (i'm thinking 200+ DVD's) are not going to offload their old movies and upgrade their films to HD-DVD/Blu-Ray.

I have way more than 200 movies on DVD, and am slowly offloading them - now is the time to sell, not to wait. I've picked Blu-Ray because the studio support is much better and it's had clear sales dominance for an entire year now, along with a far larger player base at this point.

Re:The adoption problems are manifold

[DragonWriter]

Furthermore, If Sony wants to sell more BRD players they need to cut their costs in half and stop trying to bundle their PS3 console with the player.

Sony doesn't bundle PS/3 consoles with most of their BD players, though they do bundle a BD player as part of the PS/3 console. They sell standalone BD players (even entire home theater systems) that you can get cheaper than a PS/3 console.

Re:The adoption problems are manifold

[Phybersyk0]

DragonWriter said: Sony doesn't bundle PS/3 consoles with most of their BD players, though they do bundle a BD player as part of the PS/3 console. They sell standalone BD players (even entire home theater systems) that you can get cheaper than a PS/3 console.

My point was that, for a time at least, the cheapest option in Blu-Ray players was to get the PO^HS3. They should have just made a cheap Blu-Ray player to get them out the door, instead of people thinking "I'll buy *this* as my Blu-Ray player and maybe some day I'll buy some games.

Re:The adoption problems are manifold

[Anonymous Coward]

(My 60 year old mom hates "those black bars" on the top and bottom of the 4:3 display - she's gonna freak when there are "those grey bars" on the sides!)

Nah, she'll do what my mom does and stretch the picture so everyone looks fat. Then when a 16:9 movie is on she'll leave it stretched with black bars on the top and bottom.

Re:The adoption problems are manifold

[toddestan]

The thing is, for VHS to DVD the advantage was obvious. No more eating tapes, no more rewinding, and the difference in picture and sound quality was dramatic even on a cheap no-name 19" CRT TV. The conversion to HD doesn't have this advantage. The increase in quality is not as dramatic, and you're only really going to see it on a large, expensive TV (or a high-res computer monitor I suppose). Furthermore, you don't have the advantages of going from a magnetic tape to an optical disk either, but you do have the disadvantage of even more DRM.

People will start buying them when they don't cost much more than the DVD, or are at the same price, or a DVD version is no longer available, but I wouldn't expect things to pick up until that happens.

Re:The adoption problems are manifold

[Anonymous Coward]

I have way more than 200 movies on DVD, and am slowly offloading them - now is the time to sell, not to wait. I've picked Blu-Ray because the studio support is much better and it's had clear sales dominance for an entire year now, along with a far larger player base at this point. Oh, so that's why you're always spreading FUD about HD DVD. You've already started dumping your money into Blu-ray. You're trying to convince everyone that Blu-ray has already won this format war, but TFA indicates that this war hasn't even started yet. Blu-ray's lead over HD DVD doesn't mean shit when total combined disc sales are 1% of DVD sales.

Re:The adoption problems are manifold

[evilviper]

The increase in quality is not as dramatic,

The 6X increase from DVD to highdef isn't as dramatic as the 2-3X increase from VHS to DVD?

and you're only really going to see it on a large, expensive TV (or a high-res computer monitor I suppose).

No. A small, cheap TV can do 1080 just fine. And basically any computer monitor made in the past 10 years will give you most of the resolution of HD.

Re:The adoption problems are manifold

[toddestan]

The 6X increase from DVD to highdef isn't as dramatic as the 2-3X increase from VHS to DVD?

No, it isn't. It's like the difference between a $50 stereo and a $200 stereo, and the $200 stereo to a $800 stereo. People can tell that the HD is better, but it doesn't seem that much better. Especially since the eye has limited resolution, and people generally don't sit with their nose against the TV.

No. A small, cheap TV can do 1080 just fine. And basically any computer monitor made in the past 10 years will give you most of the resolution of HD.

A small, cheap TV is going to be downconverting, because there is no way a cheap TV is going to have 1080 lines of resolution, unless perhaps it is a newer CRT. And don't forget the millions of existing TVs out there that probably won't get replaced for a long time.

Re:The adoption problems are manifold

[evilviper]

People can tell that the HD is better, but it doesn't seem that much better.

According to who? I've never seen any scientific studies to support such a claim, so I presume you're just making things up as you go to support what you already believe.

there is no way a cheap TV is going to have 1080 lines of resolution, unless perhaps it is a newer CRT.

By definition, a small, cheap HDTV is going to be CRT-based. Nothing else comes close in price. And CRTs just happen to have the best resolution of anything.

As for "newer", well, HDTVs have been around for a decade now, which may be "new" on a cosmic scale, but it's a pretty long time by any reasonable metric. And before you say it, yes, even the earliest CRT HDTVs were quite close to full 1080 resolution... in fact that's the primary reason 1080i was chosen as the highest broadcast standard.

Re:The adoption problems are manifold

[toddestan]

According to who? I've never seen any scientific studies to support such a claim, so I presume you're just making things up as you go to support what you already believe.

People will go to HD eventually, it's just at this point it's not $xxx better, where $xxx is the cost to go HD. This is different from VHS to DVD, where people were much more willing to spend the $yyy to make the switch because it was percieved to be that much better. That's the general feeling I get from almost everyone, except for the early adaptors that already have it, and the ones that simply don't care, but feel free to point out any scientific studies you know about that say otherwise.

As for "newer", well, HDTVs have been around for a decade now, which may be "new" on a cosmic scale, but it's a pretty long time by any reasonable metric. And before you say it, yes, even the earliest CRT HDTVs were quite close to full 1080 resolution... in fact that's the primary reason 1080i was chosen as the highest broadcast standard.

While HD has been available for a while, people haven't been buying them enmass. Heck, there are brand new non-HD TVs being made and sold right now, and they sell quite well. There is still a huge base of non-HD TVs out there.

Re:The adoption problems are manifold

[mfnickster]

By definition, a small, cheap HDTV is going to be CRT-based. Nothing else comes close in price. And CRTs just happen to have the best resolution of anything.

"By definition"? What definition are you using for "small" and "cheap," because LCD computer monitors that do 1920 x 1200 can be found for $400 or less. LCD TVs are more expensive than monitors, but it shows that such resolution is quite possible at low cost. As for size, Sanyo developed a full 1080p capable LCD that's a mere 7.1" in size.

Moreover, most CRT-based HDTV units have an aperture grille that only has 800-900 dots per scanline. Sure, they will accept an HD signal and may even display an image at 1080i resolution, but it is not physically possible for them to resolve every pixel in the image.

Re:The adoption problems are manifold

[A_Non_Moose]

From a post further up that I aggeed with.

The greatest thing DVD did for home video was making letterbox/anamorphic widescreen mainstream.

and

1.) 16:9 widescreen displays are still not pervasive enough to warrant upgrades. (This will change in 2009 after analog broadcast is dead) (My 60 year old mom hates "those black bars" on the top and bottom of the 4:3 display - she's gonna freak when there are "those grey bars" on the sides!)

Agreed, but even when they are, the "other format(ting) war" still rages on, with the WS vs AnamorphicWS movies and then on tv's that are one or the other.

Gets frustrating, as I first saw the movie "Fearless" in the original Chinese(?) release and it was in 16:9...looked fantastic on my 16:9 TV and could not wait for the American release, when it arrived...frak...4:3. Fscking morons.
Oddly enough, it was on HBO (in SD, sadly) and seemed to be in 16x9, or very close to it.

Of course, I'm still waiting for some of the other major chanels to go HD: Boston Legal in HD looks like the DVDs, but BSG looks 'meh' most of the time.

Re:The adoption problems are manifold

[evilviper]

LCD computer monitors that do 1920 x 1200 can be found for $400 or less.

For any given size (and resolution) CRTs are about half the price of LCDs. This margin is gradually closing, but right now, it remains a big margin.

Moreover, most CRT-based HDTV units have an aperture grille that only has 800-900 dots per scanline.

I look forward to seeing a source for that...

Re:The adoption problems are manifold

[mfnickster]

Moreover, most CRT-based HDTV units have an aperture grille that only has 800-900 dots per scanline.

I look forward to seeing a source for that...

http://www.dansdata.com/gz029.htm

The Sony "Super Fine Pitch" tubes have about 1400 slits per scanline in their aperture grilles, which they claim is "65% more" than most tubes. That leaves most tubes with 900 or less resolvable triads per line.

Bear in mind that CRT computer displays typically have a dot pitch of 0.35mm or less, whereas television CRTs (including HD) need to be brighter, and have a dot pitch between 0.7mm and 1mm

http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=752049

Re:The adoption problems are manifold

[evilviper]

http://www.dansdata.com/gz029.htm

That article is one big string of factual errors, from beginning to end. He can't even get the simple, well known, and easy to find facts correct.

The Sony "Super Fine Pitch" tubes have about 1400 slits per scanline in their aperture grilles, which they claim is "65% more" than most tubes.

Don't use press releases as factual sources. I've seen far too many that are outright lies.

http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=752049

Everyone in that thread is regurgitating second-hand information that they really don't understand.

I'd still look forward to reading some better sources for those facts...

Re:The adoption problems are manifold

[mfnickster]

Everyone in that thread is regurgitating second-hand information that they really don't understand.

So, perhaps you'd care to point out the errors? It's better to educate people than just tell them they are wrong.

I'd still look forward to reading some better sources for those facts...

I'll keep looking, but from everything I've found so far, it's evident that CRT-based computer monitors can achieve HD resolutions, while CRT televisions cannot. Only the Sony SFP sets came close, and those are no longer available.

Re:The adoption problems are manifold

[mfnickster]

> That article is one big string of factual errors, from beginning to end. He can't even get the simple, well known, and easy to find facts correct.
> Everyone in that thread is regurgitating second-hand information that they really don't understand.
> I'd still look forward to reading some better sources for those facts...

Your silence has certainly convinced me that you know what you're talking about, while none of those other folks do.

Huh?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I've not seen a DVD actually lock out the "menu" button for those previews, "menu" skips the player to the DVD's menu. Are you just sitting through them because you don't know to try something?

Re:Huh?

[barzok]

Nope, I've got DVDs that lock everything out so you have to watch whatever crap they throw at you.

I think at least one of them is a Baby Einstein one, which as has been noted, can make for a tense extra few minutes.

Re:Huh?

[zombie_striptease]

Most grown-up DVDs are pretty good about allowing the menu button at all times (I suspect because they know they couldn't get away with blocking), but the couple of Disney DVDs I've seen make my DVD player give the little "no way!" hand icon through a startlingly long run of previews and advertisements.

Re:Huh?

[evilRhino]

It could be my player, but I do this regularly and though it usually works, certain discs don't allow me to do this. Usually I just press the forward button to bypass this, but it's annoying if there are a number of previews, also.

Re:Huh?

[fluxrad]

This is the case for about half my movies, if not more. You can skip the actual previews, but the piracy warnings and other B.S. the studios throw in at the front end tend to be unskippable (is that a word?).

Re:Huh?

[Gothic_Walrus]

There are a lot of DVDs that don't respond to the .

And let me tell you - when you've got to sit through the same two minute ad for a cable channel every time you put in the DVD, it gets old. It's even worse when the disc in question is part of a season set for a TV show and the same trailer is on every disc.

Re:Huh?

[Mix Master Nixon]

I have some European MGM discs that lock out EVERY button except "eject" for the "You Wouldn't Steal A Car" bullshit. I ripped and gave away a half dozen copies of the DVDs strictly on principle thanks to being forcibly subjected to that. "The Boondocks" has pretty much the last word on that moronic ad -- http://www.zippyvideos.com/6682406957282436/boondocks_movie/.

Re:Huh?

[__aaqvdr516]

If you haven't seen it, then I'd say you haven't watched enough movies! I don't have the patience right now to go through my collection just to find the ones that do this, but there's more than just a few.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

My DVD player (Mintek) allows me to do this but my roommate's (Phillips) does not.

most consumers sidelined by debt

[Anonymous Coward]

never a more descriptive word though, consumers. it has been said that the greatest fear of the 'rich' is that one day the poor will rise up & eat them. better days/weather ahead? we're hoping for clear sailing on our boat that floats on almost any substance.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071229/ap_on_sc/ye_climate_records;_ylt=A0WTcVgednZHP2gB9wms0NUE

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in.

for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it?

we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying

dictator style micro management has never worked (for very long). it's an illness. tie that with life0cidal aggression & softwar gangster style bullying, & what do we have? a greed/fear/ego based recipe for disaster.

meanwhile, you can help to stop the bleeding (loss of life & limb);
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/28/vermont.banning.bush.ap/index.html

the bleeding must be stopped before any healing can begin. jailing a couple of corepirate nazi hired goons would send a clear message to the rest of the world from US. any truthful look at the 'scorecard' would reveal that we are a society in decline/deep doo-doo, despite all of the scriptdead pr ?firm? generated drum beating & flag waving propaganda that we are constantly bombarded with. is it time to get real yet? please consider carefully ALL of yOUR other 'options'.

the creators will prevail. as it has always been.

corepirate nazi execrable costs outweigh benefits
(Score:-)mynuts won, the king is a fink)
by ourselves on everyday 24/7

as there are no benefits, just more&more death/debt & disruption. fortunately there's an 'army' of light bringers, coming yOUR way.

the little ones/innocents must/will be protected. after the big flash, ALL of yOUR imaginary 'borders' may blur a bit? for each of the creators' innocents harmed in any way, there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/us, as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile, will not be available. 'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet, & by your behaviors. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi glowbull warmongering execrable. some of US should consider ourselves somewhat fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate. it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc....

as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis. concern about the course of events that will occur should the life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order. 'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

consul

Why bother?

[sherriw]

I don't see any reason to bother switching to the new disk formats- either one. My DVD collection is pretty expansive and I don't want to have to replace them. Also, I don't have a high-def TV (hell, my friends have a nice wide-screen one and it still shows the black bars on wide-screen movies... no idea why). The fact that there is still 2 main formats battling it out, makes it even more unattractive for me to choose one and risk choosing the eventual loser. Not to mention the extra cost. Though in my opinion... if the player can't play my old DVDs too, then it's a non-starter.

Overall there's just nothing to get excited about regarding these new formats. *yawn*

Re:Why bother?

[Anonymous Coward]

(hell, my friends have a nice wide-screen one and it still shows the black bars on wide-screen movies... no idea why).

 
Two possible reasons:
 
1. Your friends are idiots and don't know how to properly set an aspect ratio on their TV.
 
2. You're an idiot and don't understand that there are more than one aspect ratios. If a widescreen source doesn't exactly match the aspect of a TV, you're going to have black bars. In other words, not all rectangles are the same.
 
Regardless, idiots are involved no matter how you look at it. Peace.

Re:Why bother?

[91degrees]

Many movies are 2.35:1. Wide screen TVs are 16:9 (about 1.8:1). So you'll still get black bars at the top and bottom. Just smaller.

Doesn't Sony always loose?

[JerryLove]

Betamax, DAT, MiniDisc, Digital8, MemoryStick, etc, etc.

I'm almost serious in thinking "Bluray will loose because it is Sony". I don't know *why* sony always looses, but I can't think of one example where there were multiple standards and Sony won (game-consoles don't count as they are not standards).

All that said: I've in the "wait and see" crowd myself. I'm less worried about the players than investing in a media library that will self-obsolete. The desire for better quality created my LaserDisc collection, which sits unused.

I don't know what will tip the balance. Had the PS3 not been the most expensive toy on the block, its inclusion of a BluRay player might have given Sony a victory. If HD-DVD burners show up on the PC at a good price soon, my desire to transfer my DV-masters to a disc-based media might put one in my home (Ditto BluRay).

I've gotten to the point that I don't care who wins. I just want a victor.

Re:Doesn't Sony always loose?

[Hymer]

The tecnology behind DAT was not a failure... it has been reused in almost everything that needed digital recording in a compact format and with high capacity.

• Digital audio (the original DAT)
• Digital video (DV, camcorders and portable digital video recorders)
• Tape drives for backup (Tandberg, IBM, HP)

That can't be called a failure.
The primary reason why this format didn't become a digital distribution format for audio and video is... the missing copy protection.
...and remember, this was several years before the DVD.

Re:Doesn't Sony always loose?

[JerryLove]

The DAT tape is a progression from the VHS tape's helical scan technology. As such, the technology had already succeeded before the DAT was introduced. In fact, PCM on VHS tapes predates the DAT by quite a bit.

I will admit that the DSS format, which had a healthy life, is more closely tied to DAT than some of the other relationships I've mentioned. Be that as it may: DAT was introduced to sell audio tapes and audio recording. Very few people baut DAT players/recorders (relative to the other technologies), and very few artists put out their albums on DAT. The format is dead and its competitor, the CD is still going strong.

DAT died, in no small part because of the RIAA... its children survived far longer.

Re:Doesn't Sony always loose?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sony always loosens my knots, that's for sure. They send a guy around every evening to take my shoes off for some reason.

They also tend to lose format wars as well, which is great because they are idiots.

Just to let you know, repeatedly confusing "loose" with "lose" makes one look stupid.

Re:Doesn't Sony always loose?

[JerryLove]

It's a test to weed out those interested in content from those obsessed with finding grammatical fault. I hate investing energy into one because I mistook them for the other.

Re:Doesn't Sony always loose?

[Hymer]

Helical scan is much older than VHS, it has been used since mid 1960'ies. DAT was the first (if I remember correct) small form factor helical scan solution.
I will agree that DAT as digital audio distribution format has flopped but I do not think Sony lost much on it and Sony was a part of the CD development team. ;-)
Sony's main market was professional equipment back then and their development shows it clearly (focus on high quality and not cheap manufacturing).

Re:Doesn't Sony always loose?

[JerryLove]

I'm not saying Sony was wrong. Most of the time it comes to these competitions Sony has, in my mind, the superior product. Unfortunately that's not enough.

Most (older) customers have no reason for HD

[Opportunist]

Cue my dad.

He's a war movie fan. Especially 2nd World War. From Tora Tora Tora to Midway, from Battle of Britain to One Bridge too far, he has them all. He wants them all. He watches them all. When DVD came out, he was one of the first to go and get a DVD player, because now his previous movies would never go grainy from being watched a million times over.

Now, his movies have been made in the 60s and maybe 70s. Sound? Mono. MAYBE stereo. 5.1? C'mon, be sensible. Film quality? At DVD level you already saw the flaws, why bother with HD?

For him, there is no reason at all to even consider HD. Whether HDDVD or BluRay is moot for him, he's happy with his DVD.

And that's another problem. When someone is a fan of 60s movie, or of a movie star from the pre-80s era, he simply does not benefit from HD.

Re:Most (older) customers have no reason for HD

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know that some of those movies you listed were filmed on larger negatives then a lot of current films. The grain you often saw on dvd is actually an artifact of the lower resolution. When you increase the resolution you actually get a much more detailed image. Remember too that a lot of DVD transfers for older movies were taken from inferior sources or are the older transfers for laserdisc. This has changed in more recent years and if you compare newer transfers you can see a vast improvement.

Re:Most (older) customers have no reason for HD

[Anonymous Coward]

And he points out one of the most common flaws re: the whole HD thing--that only material "shot in HD" benefits from HD. He doesn't realize that film (the stuff they've been shooting movies on for the past 100 years) benefits most from the HD formats.

Re:Most (older) customers have no reason for HD

[kindbud]

Yeah, but... http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/TOS/article/28095.html

War movies are next, count on it. Remastered, digitally enhanced, flaws removed, better than the original.

Re:Most (older) customers have no reason for HD

[gad_zuki!]

Movies are shot on film, which up until recently provided the best quality for filmmakers. DVDs are sub-part when talking about film. Film outstrips the quality you get with the current HD consumer stuff.

Your father's problem is that there are no new transfers (yet?) for these old movies. That's not a technical limiation but a business one. If these studios wanted to make gorgeous high-quality transfers then you'd drop your jaw at the results.

Re:Most (older) customers have no reason for HD

[evilviper]

Now, his movies have been made in the 60s and maybe 70s. Sound? Mono. MAYBE stereo. 5.1? C'mon, be sensible.

It's almost certain the studio has the multi-track master stored away somewhere. Remember, the wonderful sounds in films don't come from a microphone on the set... they all come from some guy in a sound studio banging pots and pans together. They can mix that together any way they want.

It's in stereo just because they didn't think there'd be a big enough audience for the old films to justify the effort of remixing the sound.

Film quality? At DVD level you already saw the flaws, why bother with HD?

Film is far higher resolution than even the highest HDTV format. You got a crappy picture because the studio didn't want to spend any money on cleaning up one of the master reels, and paying big money to telecine it on the expensive equipment.

I've seen plenty of pre-digital, non-blockbuster films where I'd swear they used a 1980s TV camera and a $100 capture card to convert from film to DVD. They may have just decided to digitize their master VHS transfer or something similar. The resolution of film isn't to blame, and an HDTV transfer would easily blow away your DVDs... if they'll spend the money.

Whether HDDVD or BluRay is moot for him, he's happy with his DVD.

Most people are happy with what they have, rather than desperately longing to spend thousands of dollars on something they've never seen before.

When someone is a fan of 60s movie, or of a movie star from the pre-80s era, he simply does not benefit from HD.

If you watch nothing but old TV shows, that is true. Film, however, will still have lots of resolution to spare after 1080 HD.

Re:Most (older) customers have no reason for HD

[Opportunist]

I'm quite sure you're right, but so far you can't get good quality transfers. And somehow I doubt this would change in HD.

Let's be serious here. The target group for those releases of 60s war movies are most likely not the young generation of movie goers that are used to THX audio. When you look at those war movies, you'll notice that they usually don't use all the new features. Maybe because the target audience is a lot like my dad. He doesn't have a "home movie theater". He has a TV and a DVD player. He uses the speakers of his TV, no surround sound system. His TV has a diagonal of about 30". And the only reason he has a 16:9 TV is that there were no old fashion ones anymore when his old TV died. He uses normal video cable to connect the machines, no scart, no fancy stuff. He wants to watch his movies. He doesn't care about all the technology mumbo jumbo. He doesn't care about crystal clear audio.

Maybe he wants to recreate his "experience" in the cinema back then, when you had one or (if it was really, really fancy) two speakers instead of the high tech stuff we have today.

Or maybe he cares about the movie and its story, and not so much about how impressive it is to hear a bomb explode behind you instead of in front of you. He's one of the people who want to watch a movie, not "experience" it.

Re:Most (older) customers have no reason for HD

[goatpunch]

Take a look at the cleaned-up HD version of an old movie like Casablanca. The quality is just stunning. Actually, old movies are one the things that impresses me most about high-def formats (the other is Planet Earth). Even with the compression added by HD Cable TV, watching old movies from the 50's look amazing in 1080i.

Re:Most (older) customers have no reason for HD

[iainl]

Except that many 70mm releases (I'm particularly thinking of 2001's release in 1969 or thereabouts) had 5-channel surround mixes, so yes - the tracks are there for some.

Casablanca on HD-DVD looks like it was shot yesterday, the print is so detailed and crisp. So I can't see why that's impossible for The Longest Day, which already looks pretty good on standard-def.

Besides, Letters From Iwo Jima looks drop-dead-gorgeous in washed-out greys and blues. You don't _have_ to stick to the old classics for your war movies.

Re:Most (older) customers have no reason for HD

[Blakey Rat]

Film is far higher resolution than even the highest HDTV format.

Actually, you might be surprised (for 35mm film at least; I don't think there's any question that 70mm films surpass HD format resolutions.) See this website for a detailed comparison between the two:

http://www.filmschoolonline.com/sample_lessons/sample_lesson_HD_vs_35mm.htm

Note that they did that study with actual viewers in an actual theater; on paper, 35mm may be higher resolution, but the actual viewers couldn't tell the difference when both were projected onto the same screen, so practically there is no difference. And the viewers they chose were a "panel of experts."

Re:Most (older) customers have no reason for HD

[Mix Master Nixon]

Nonsense. The 50s marked the introduction of the high resolution film formats such as the various 70mm formats and "sideways" 35mm VistaVision, and multichannel sound was part of CinemaScope from the beginning, though not all CinemaScope films took advantage of it. HD and surround sound are quite applicable to a large number of 60s and 70s productions, with real gains to be had over SD DVD quality. I'm also waiting on dual-format players to come down in price before I take that plunge. In the meantime, I have plenty of HD material to watch for free courtesy of ATSC over-the-air broadcasts.

Re:Most (older) customers have no reason for HD

[Mix Master Nixon]

Footnote - yes, I know 70mm and multichannel sound both predate the 50s. I am referring to their widespread use.

Re:Most (older) customers have no reason for HD

[dsgrntlxmply]

I don't know that it's quite accurate to say that older movies do not benefit from HD.

What seems more accurate is that we have so much experience in seeing movies on SD TV (and worse, VHS) and for those of us who are older, with considerably worse SD TV performance, that our expectations are nearly met by VHS, fully met by conventional broadcast, and exceeded by a decently encoded DVD played through the definitely superior (to composite) S-Video connection.

If you have never seen (or the experience has faded from memory) a good Technicolor print, or a Cinerama showing of 2001: A Space Odyssey, it is difficult to realize how beautiful real film can be, even as far back as a 1939 production (The Wizard of Oz, part black and white, part Technicolor).

A lot depends upon the nature of the film. If most of the experience is in the dialog, with My Dinner With Andre being the extreme case, or Glengarry Glen Ross, visual quality is not really all that important. If it is an immersive sensory overload, like 2001, or the first Star Wars, even HD will not do it justice.

I recently, and never having seen it on film, saw Killer of Sheep on conventional DVD projected in an auditorium. I was in awe of the quality of the (low budget black and white, but in many of its scenes beautifully filmed) experience.

Something like Saving Private Ryan could be seen one way on film, another way in HD, and yet another in SD, and be different yet still effective in each of the three. Gothika I have only seen in HD (HBO); it was very effective there, but I cannot see that it would be any better on film, or very effective at all in SD with ordinary sound. Rabbit-Proof Fence was a gut-slammer on film, but not especially effective in the admittedly awful environment of airline seatback TV (perhaps an unfair comparison, because I saw it first on film). It would almost certainly benefit by HD presentation, because it relies upon both story and immersive visuals.

Re:Most (older) customers have no reason for HD

[Anonymous Coward]

You say that now, but everybody says they don't need what they don't have. It's just human nature.

Now, I saw "12 Angry Men" on VHS and then "Hitch" on Blu-Ray, and they're both excellent movies, but I'd have to give it to Hitch on picture quality alone.

Then again, I hear they're going to digitally reprocess 12 Angry Men into a 3-D Imax experience, and I don't know what Hitch will do to compete with that.

Re:Most (older) customers have no reason for HD

[mesterha]

Actually, you might be surprised (for 35mm film at least; I don't think there's any question that 70mm films surpass HD format resolutions.) See this website for a detailed comparison between the two:

http://www.filmschoolonline.com/sample_lessons/sample_lesson_HD_vs_35mm.htm

Note that they did that study with actual viewers in an actual theater; on paper, 35mm may be higher resolution, but the actual viewers couldn't tell the difference when both were projected onto the same screen, so practically there is no difference. And the viewers they chose were a "panel of experts."

While this is interesting, film still has higher resolution. It's just that the method used to project the film loses a lot of the resolution. There are systems that can use some of this higher resolution. For example, Maxivision improves resolution and removes some artifacts.

It's also likely that digital conversion can capture the extra resolution. As HD standards increase we should be able to do transfers of higher quality. At some point, we will hit diminishing returns. Do you know of any studies that test the limit of resolution for a person with 20/20 vision? (It probably can be approximated from eye chart information.)

Re:Most (older) customers have no reason for HD

[gEvil (beta)]

I looked over that site and also dug up the original study. Based on what I read, it seems that a 1080p image would only have a 540 L/PH resolution, since they are looking for distinguishable line pairs (also note that the image on that webpage is nothing like the image used in the test). The 750 L/PH resolution (as well as the 875 L/PH max) are considerably higher than the 540 L/PH theoretical figure of a 1080p source (assuming I understand their methods correctly). It would be interesting to perform that same study using a 1080p image to see how it fares.

Re:Most (older) customers have no reason for HD

[Anonymous Coward]

> You say that now, but everybody says they don't need what they don't have. It's just human nature.

It also happens to be true. If you're somehow managing to survive without it now, then by definition you don't *need* it.

Re:Most (older) customers have no reason for HD

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree about the comment about older movies being helped by HD, in fact i think they have more to gain. I have seen movies like Pal Joey with Frank Sinatra and even a John Wayne movie made in 1963, the quality is simply amazing, like they were filmed yesterday and brings these movies to life.

Re:Most (older) customers have no reason for HD

[Spacezilla]

At some point, we will hit diminishing returns. Do you know of any studies that test the limit of resolution for a person with 20/20 vision? (It probably can be approximated from eye chart information.) http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/

Have you seen this? I'm not sure if it's exactly what you're talking about, but it does show that 1080p or even 720p can certainly be "as good as it gets" depending on screen size and viewing distance. The chart appears to be accurate as well, I checked it out on my 1080p 42" with 1:1 pixel mapping and the distance where I could no longer tell each pixel apart matched that predicted by the chart very well.

Re:Most (older) customers have no reason for HD

[mesterha]

Have you seen this? I'm not sure if it's exactly what you're talking about, but it does show that 1080p or even 720p can certainly be "as good as it gets" depending on screen size and viewing distance. The chart appears to be accurate as well, I checked it out on my 1080p 42" with 1:1 pixel mapping and the distance where I could no longer tell each pixel apart matched that predicted by the chart very well.

At theater distances and screen sizes, it looks like 1440p might be enough for resolution. There are other problems, but I assume they have more to do with the projection equipment than the source.

Re:Most (older) customers have no reason for HD

[Shajenko42]

It also happens to be true. If you're somehow managing to survive without it now, then by definition you don't *need* it.

Circumstances change of course. While this doesn't apply so much to entertainment devices, new technology eventually goes from luxury to necessity.

For instance, take the water heater. People lived for millions of years without it. But try living in modern society without regular access to a shower.

No compelling reason to upgrade...

[Anonymous Coward]

There really isn't a good reason to upgrade if you have a pile of DVD's - the tape-to-DVD transition had many things driving it besides image quality, like instant scene access, extras and audio commentary. It was actually worthwhile upgrading a movie collection, and it gave you a new perspective on your favorite films. But paying 2x the price for a moderate improvement in picture quality is just not enough motivation, sorry.

I do have a 1080p TV, and I'd say my best purchase to go with it has been a top-quality up-scaling DVD+HD Recorder. Now if I had have found one that also did HD-DVD, I would gladly have made the jump, but upgrading my whole movie library is out of the question at 5-6 grand, and for the 1-3 new HD movies that I'd buy each year it just wouldn't be worth it to buy a new device.

My prediction: HD-DVD will win out in the long run, as soon as the manufacturers start marketing them as combined devices for up-scaling old DVD's as well as playing new HD-DVD's, and eventually DVD drives will just get replaced across the board in all consumer devices. At that point HD-DVD sales should pick up with people buying HD in preference to normal DVDs for new releases.

Media cost is prohibitive too...

[Ritz_Just_Ritz]

Never mind the cost of the players. The cost of bona fide hi-def media is substantially more expensive than their DVD counterparts. I would never replace movies I already own, but spending 50% more on a new title just to get it in some hi-def format that might turn out to be a flash in the pan is what is holding me back. I'll stick with my mid-range upconverting 1080p DVD player for now.

Cheers,

No it isn't

[Anonymous Coward]

The most important feature, by far, in a TV/video player is the content. i.e. the plot of the story, the quality of acting and dialogue. Just like the computer game industry, the businesses get sucked into the thinking that graphics is everything. It isn't.

The HD war will be won by Asia

[DrYak]

Most of us are waiting for inexpensive, dual format (Blueray & HD-DVD) players.

Thankfully, there's a handful asian companies in Korea who are listening to you : Samsung and LG are slowly introducing such dual player. Now we only have to wait until the price drop enough and no-name constructor join the game. (And maybe, by then, the player will also be compatible with China's variant - EVD? I think...)

Lastly, a HUGE number of consumers can't even tell the difference between DVD and HD quality! {...} if most consumers can't even tell the difference, why should they pay more?

But, haven't you see all this TV commercial that compare the quality of both ? There's surely a difference, just like all those commercial which showed you the quality of new flat screens !
{/sarcasm}

More seriously : that's why all CD successor failed. No perceptible killer-spec that will make the masses rush to buy one. The HD formats will very very slowly enter the market. Not because the consumer sees them as an incredible improvement, but just because the dead-cheap asian hardware producer will slowly phase-out DVD drives and introduce HD format in their sub-$100 player offerings.

Probably, HD content will see much more success on The Pirate Bay than in living room players. (Except maybe in countries were the ISP will try to throttle massive P2P traffic while explaining why net neutrality is bad. Sorry for you on the other side of the pond...)
The DRM which prevent to convert movies into a format available on-the-move (ripping part of your library into your laptop or zunepod-video or whatever) will probably also be part of the reason.

Re:The HD war will be won by Asia

[timeOday]

Thankfully, there's a handful asian companies in Korea who are listening to you : Samsung and LG are slowly introducing such dual player. Now we only have to wait until the price drop enough and no-name constructor join the game

The price of the player is not the problem. I noticed in the paper yesterday that high-def movies are still $24. That's crazy! I know they only cost a couple bucks extra to produce. Aside from that, it's simply not worth that much for a DVD, high-def or no.

Consumers

[rpillala]

As a consumer, I am certainly sitting out the format war. As a human being, not so much. I've even gone so far as to not have cable TV in my house at all, since the pirates have agreed on a video format. My TV is attached to my computer (this one) and it's pretty simple (and getting simpler) to find any TV show I want and some I couldn't get without paying a huge monthly subscription (read: foreign, not like HBO.) If I were a sports fan I might feel different about live TV. Let's use The Office as an example. I own the DVDs of all 3 seasons, but they don't look as nice as the 720p rips that I download of the new season. I will probably buy the new season on DVD but continue to watch my rips. I would buy it not for what I get from the deal (basically nothing) but because I want to support the work (though that connection appears to be an illusion as well.) This all extends to movies but it's even worse because once you choose they have you locked down. There's no guarantee that if I get a bluray player so I can watch Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon that any other bluray movies will appeal to me that much. I agree with another poster about wanting an inexpensive dual format player. I would probably go for that.

Inflection point for HD TVs

[krygny]

I think we are now at the inflection point for HD TVs. Last I heard, we (in the US) were at about 24% penetration. In the next year, that will invert. HDTV adoption is about to accelerate. But Joe and Flo Shmo Wal-mart shopper, don't know anything about HDDVD or Blu-Ray. Until the two formats reconcile or players converge to interchangeability, most people won't bother. Well, at least until they put a standard DVD in their player and see how much worse it looks that even their 1080i broadcasts.

Yes, it is.

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the greatest movie ever made (by all means pick it), you have a choice between:

1. viewing the Blu-Ray stored, played back to a 1080p 46" monitor,

2. black and white, NTSC rencoded PAL signal bounced off the Moon, with a very noisy pre-amp, and a 12" display

So, what's it gonna be?

Re:Yes, it is.

[Anonymous Coward]

Option 3. My $150 color tv set, which works just fine.

This is not the time to buy

[Cannelloni]

OK, I hate telling people what to do. I really do! But this time, please wait until the next generation flat-panel TVs and high definition players arrive. There is really no rush. Both Blu-ray and HD-DVD have their problems, and while TVs have improved dramatically the last year or so, they are still not quite there yet. Personally, I will wait until HD content is distributed legally over the internet, something that will begin to happen during 2008. Maybe that will resolve the format war too, who knows?

Re:This is not the time to buy

[bilbravo]

HD content distributed over the internet is a lost cause (at the moment). I wouldn't want my video compressed much more than it already is on BD/HD-DVD... and those are 15 GB minimum! I don't want to wait for that download, nor could any ISP handle people doing that much downloading. High-definition disc formats make my DirecTV HD feed look horrible. The compression is nasty. Same thing would happen with streaming HD (for now).

Also, something about a tangible item in my hand when I make a purchase. But that's just my preference.

Re:This is not the time to buy

[Cannelloni]

I guess you have never seen H.264 compressed material then! This will have a huge imnpact next year, I promise you! :D

Re:This is not the time to buy

[Cannelloni]

Read this please: http://www.apple.com/quicktime/technologies/h264/

Re:This is not the time to buy

[bilbravo]

720p requires 5-6Mbps to stream it, and 1080p even more. (warning: speculation ahead) It definitely makes things faster to download but for most people (in the US at least) 1 Mbps is the best they can do. That's still a long time for a movie download. Not out of the question though. However, I doubt any ISP can maintain anything close to even 1 Mbps if everyone is downloading HD quality video regularly.

I'm just waiting

[chrisgeleven]

I rather wait for a $100 dual-format player and/or HD rentals/purchases from the iTunes Store.

I see no reason to have 2 high-def movie players right now. I rather just sit it out and wait.

And the content is much more expensive.

[Maxo-Texas]

Blu-Ray/HD, $29
Same on DVD $16

Three to six months later
Blu-Ray/HD, $25
Same on DVD $10

My HD DVD Format War Story

[Cytlid]

When I moved into a new house (and a new job, new state, etc) my wife and I purchased an HDTV. Being big media fans, I knew it was a matter of time before we took sides in the new Hi-Def DVD format war.

  I didn't care for the prices of the players. To make a long story short, a local retail store had a Toshiba HD DVD player on sale (well the display unit) for about 1/2 off ... so $150 sounded good to me, I bought it on the spot.

  Even though it only outputs 1080i, I love it. It makes the standard def DVDs look good as well. Now a neighbor buddy of mine decided to take both sides in the format war, already had a PS3 and bought himself a Toshiba HD DVD player, too (the next model number up).

  So for Christmas, he and his spouse got me and the wife a Blu-ray disc player. So I guess we're all set in the format war for now.

  I think if people get annoyed enough (my wife didn't like how some titles were Blu-ray only) they'll just settle down and get both. Not only that, the prices are coming down. My neighbor friend knew how frugal I can be and he insisted it was on sale and he got a really good deal on it.

  Personally I like the output on the particular Blu-Ray player (1080p) *but* for some reason standard-def DVDs abrubptly "stop" during playing. I had this issue with several Netflix DVD's and chalked it up to the used disc. But last night I opened a new (standard def) DVD and it had the same problem.

  Guess my entire point is, geeks like options. Given the price coming down, average Joes will like the options too and the whole "format war" will become moot.

  Maybe then someone will sit down at the table and agree on something.

The real question:

[zippthorne]

Is why are people still buying DVDs? Whichever format wins, DVDs are obsolete. Until that time, it would be quite a bit thriftier to get a Netflix account or just rent locally as a stop-gap measure. Actually, it might be more cost effective even after one of those formats win.

It certainly doesn't make any sense at all to sink any more money into a DVD collection at this time.

Re:The real question:

[hawaiian717]

Because DVDs will still work on BluRay or HD-DVD players -- unlike VHS which doesn't work on DVD players. And some of us don't want to wait for Comedy Central to get around to chopping up Bender's Big Score.

I won't buy either because of HDMI

[lophophore]

I won't buy either BluRay or HD-DVD because the encrypted hi-def HDMI output won't work with my component video 5 year old 1080i television set. Besides the fact that I am opposed to HDMI for political reasons (why build protection to keep the honest out?) it is loaded with bugs. Hardware and software DRM have done **nothing** to stop piracy, all they have done is driven up the cost and complexity and reduced the functionality of consumer goods.

Why can't I plug my home theater together with ethernet cables?

Re:I won't buy either because of HDMI

[Anonymous Coward]

Except you can use component outputs and still get a 1080i image from all of the players out there today (trust me, I do it right now). But don't let FACTS get in the way of your ill-informed biases.

And as for the ethernet cables: I guess you're the type who likes to ignore any and all legacy connections and start over the moment something new comes out. Oh, but what was that about not upgrading to HDMI because your set uses component cables? You can't have it both ways, y'know.

Re:I won't buy either because of HDMI

[corsec67]

So get a dvd player that will do 1080i over component. It has a problem going through my receiver, but connected directly to my TV over component I get 1080i on my LCD TV.

Yep... that's why it so prolific

[microbox]

Honestly... it's crap like that that makes me want to just download instead of purchasing.

The fact that media companies think they can control what I consume by shoving ads/branding/corporate-ethics-of-the-day just ensures that I'll look elsewhere. I'm not sure if media companies understand how obvious that is - or perhaps they believe they're entitled to piss me off, and therefore it's a "moral" issue not grounded in the reality of what people actually do.

To sumerise the argument: corporate greed is right and consumer greed is wrong. Ignore that you can get something better elsewhere. But isn't giving consumers what they want the very core of a market economy?

If the media companies bit the bullet and actually provided a wonderfully easy to use, indexed service where you could download your latest shows/movies/songs for a reasonable price (say 99c for an episode of TV - watermark it if you want). Well, why would I bother with all the hassle of illegal downloading when I can get what I want much more conveniently?

I once saw a senior market researcher explaining how she was researching ways to make children better naggers. She said that irritation might be a certain attitude that parents have, but if they ship toys they win. I think that sentiment sums up the ethics of the people who force you and your children to sit though commercials and other branding on your legitimately bought DVDs.

I think it's a moral choice to download, because in the end, a market economy is about the consumer. If/when the media companies play ball, then the consumer will buy from them. If TV/music/movies must be produced on smaller budgets, and prices have to come down - well then, the consumer has spoken, and that will make everyone happy.

There has to be a winner?

[userw014]

Nobody has whispered "8-track" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereo_8) yet.

ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea that a 480p upsampling DVD player is any kind of substitute for a high definition video source is ludicrous.

Once you've gotten to view a range of 1080p content, the difference is ASTOUNDING. The idea that you can make up nearly 10 TIMES the amount of data out of thin air and have it look anything like the real source is simply not true.

No matter how many times people say that "upsampling is a good alternative to hi-def," don't believe them. Get a high def set and find out yourself.

The players will get cheaper, but you may already have a PS3 or Xbox 360. So you already have a player. And you can get 1080p 42"+ LCD sets for under $1000 on a regular basis now, with various internet sales by watching the deal sites.

And the winner is... both and neither

[Kjella]

I just ordered myself a LG GGC-H20L. It's a HDDVD/Blu-Ray reader and DVD burner, which means I can buy from either camp. While not completely broken like CSS, it seems there's no problem finding the processing keys online and BD+ has already been worked around if not broken so I figure I'll get to do what I want with them anyway. Anyone that thinks 480p upscaled looks anything like 1080p is deluding themselves, on a hidef screen (I got a 1080p native screen) it's like night and day. Ok so it's not like VHS vs DVD, but I think it's worth it. And for those saying I support the MAFIAA, I just think that trying to fight AACS is as futile as fighting CSS on DVDs. They'll never give up so might as well go for the reasonably broken system, rather than wait for them to require something like Vista TPM/TPCA/signed to hell and back/crippleware/appliance/contact to mothership/activation required. I'd rather have this standard entrenched than for them to whip up a new super-HD format with AACS2.

Features not Quality that matters

[foxalopex]

Sadly it isn't quality that consumers go for. It's features. The reason why DVD was successful over VHS was that it was a technically more durable and easy to use format that VHS. DVD featured surround sound for the first time, allowed you to skip to different chapters and seek faster plus it was a HUGE quality jump from the old and lasted longer under heavy use. Plus it was spiffy little disk that took less shelf space.
The only gain I see in Blue-Ray or HD-DVD formats is for keeping a large series to one disk instead of a set of DVDs. Aside from that I have the inconvenience of needing to buy an entire new system and set of disks to use it. Plus it isn't easily ripped if you need it for something else.
You only need to look at mp3s versus CDs to realize that people value features and convenience over quality.
Plus with the rising use of high speed broadband, I'm beginning to find that a lot of friends are more willing to pirate movies and shows over the Internet instead of shelling out $30 for a disk with the exception of movies or shows that they really love.

Re: your Sovjet sig...

[Hymer]

In Soviet Russia, the government controls the commerce...
...and in the US the commerce controls the government.
I'm not sure which is worse from the populations/consumers point of view.

Re:Upconversion sub$100? You get what you pay for.

[Anonymous Coward]

They still got your money, got your sale, and got another faceless statistic to claim "support" from.

More Like DVD-R vs. DVD+R

[slarrg]

I see this whole format war between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray as being similar to the war between DVD-R and DVD+R. Both standards were competitors but now almost all DVD burners support both. While VHS and Beta had vastly different physical packages, it'll soon be technically trivial to have dual-format players (Philips has already developed the system and is distributing it.) Samsung will soon be releasing a full featured dual format player for around $800. You can already buy players of each format for that price. Later when one of the players gives up the ghost, seems to be about every five years with DVD players, you'll buy a new player that is dual format and just use it.

The only real battle is between two different licensing bodies. Sony is trying to keep hardware vendors from making dual-format players with their licensing agreements. I've bought both formats and buy movies in the format it's available in or, when available in both formats, whichever is offers more value for the money (better encoding, more special features, lower price, etc.) Right now huge amounts of money are changing hands between patent holders and the studios to try to force one standard to win over the other and we'll ultimately end up paying that price. Sony seems to be the biggest offender here and most studios are choosing Blu-Ray then charging more for fewer features. The sooner we, the consumers, make our households dual-format, the sooner the industry will have to start competing legitimately for our dollars instead of trying to lock us into one format or the other.

Re:More Like DVD-R vs. DVD+R

[aussie_a]

Later when one of the players gives up the ghost, seems to be about every five years with DVD players, you'll buy a new player that is dual format and just use it. Assuming one format doesn't die and so they don't stop making the dual players.

dual format player

[mu51c10rd]

I am waiting for these to come down in price. It reminds me of the +/- war, it forces the mainstream customers to wait for dual-format players.

I jumped.

[LWATCDR]

I got an HD-DVD player for $98.
It was on sale at Walmart and I am willing to loose $98 if Blueray wins.
That is the key to winning IMHO.
The first that can offer players for less than $100 will win.
I will say that the HD-DVD versions of "What Dreams May Come" looked great.

Re:I jumped.

[markdavis]

>It was on sale at Walmart and I am willing to loose $98 if Blueray wins.

Theoretically you will lose a lot more than $98 if Blueray "wins". It all depends on how many HD-DVD's you decide to purchase. If dual players don't come out, blueray takes over, and HD-DVD players are no longer available, then you are screwed.

Of course, if you are just renting HD discs, then it won't matter. Netflix has a GREAT selection of HD material now...

Re:I jumped.

[LWATCDR]

Yep I am using NetFlix. My wife bought one HD-DVD and that is probably all we will buy until the shake out happens.

A good alternative to both

[GuerreroDelInterfaz]

I've been putting off my home cinema because of the format war. I did not want to commit myself to one format and end like my father did when the Beta/VHS/2000 with a bunch of unusable expensive junk.

But now there is an alternative (at least here in Spain): paid digital television. This way I can get high def movies from both platforms without having to commit myself to either. Anyway the stupid format war is causing video renting bussinesses to hold on waiting for one format to win and so no high def movies, either Blue Ray or HD-DVD, are available to rent

I hope this solution becomes available in more countries and causes *both* formats to fail. That'll teach them to never do the same stupid mistake again (they should have known better after the Beta fiasco).

--
El Guerrero del Interfaz

Re:A good alternative to both

[leonbev]

We have "On Demand" HD movie offerings here in the states as well from most cable providers, except that the selection is still puny compared to the list of SD offerings. They also usually want something outrageous like $5.95 per showing on top of a $85 a month cable bill to view new releases.

Well, I got myself an HD DVD player

[91degrees]

I had to buy something. My new TV seemed a little sad without any high definition inputs to use.

I'll buy a Blu-Ray player when multi-region hackable ones start to come out. Everyone else I know with a High Def [player feels the same way. I really can't believe they decided to do the region coding thing again. The consumers really don't like being prevented from doing something perfectly legitimate.

My next purchase will be a high def network media centre.

Re:Well, I got myself an HD DVD player

[Phybersyk0]

HD-DVD players are already region free. No hack to wait for.

Re:Well, I got myself an HD DVD player

[91degrees]

Yup. So I bought one (although the Toshibas are all region locked for standard DVD).

Sorry. A little confused here. Was I unclear? I bought an HD-DVD player because it's region free. I'll buy a Blu-Ray player when that's region free.

Re:Well, I got myself an HD DVD player

[Dysfnctnl85]

My next purchase will be a high def network media centre.

This is the future of distribution. If the movie studios would put more effort behind digital distribution, the format war would pretty much disappear. It would be shifted to which encoding process it the best. I'm currently in the Vudu Evangelist program http://www.vudu.com/ and if they can continue to negotiate with the content creators, much like Apple and Tivo, the future of distribution could be completely digital.

I guess you didn't know

[fredrated]

the idiots have changed the meaning. Happens all the time. Someone hears a phrase or word they don't know, imagine it means something it doesn't, use it the wrong way, and before you know it everyone is using it the wrong way.

Like 'steep learning curve'. In reality a steep learning curve is good, because the learning curve is the amount learned over time, and a steep curve means one has learned more in a short time. Some idiot though thought steep was bad like in climbing, so now 'steep learning curve' is taken to mean 'hard to learn', the exact opposite of it's true meaning. I blame media that makes it so easy to propogate the thoughts of idiots.

Re:I guess you didn't know

[jmpeax]

I think you misunderstand how the phrase is used. People don't say "I have a steep learning curve" to mean they're stupid, they say "this requires a steep learning curve" or "this entails a steep learning curve" to mean that something is difficult and therefore requires people to be able to learn quickly.

Sitting it out here

[metamatic]

Let me know when I can get a region-free Blu-ray player for under $300.

Re:Upconversion sub$100? You get what you pay for.

[kybred]

The general usability and responsiveness was also much worse on the cheap upconverter.

Might I ask, was that a Toshiba unit? I bought a Toshiba a few years ago and had nothing but trouble with it. Push the drawer open button (on the remote or the front panel) and nothing... push it again and it would open then close!. It just recently died and I promised myself I'd never get another Toshiba DVD player. Bought a Sammy 1080P for $79 and so far it's been great. Better picture and it actually responds to the button presses!

I'm from Maine...

[Chees0rz]

And I hate lobstah...

Re:I'm from Maine...

[AliasMarlowe]

And I hate lobstah... Not surprising. I spent a deal of time in Maine, and all that was on offer was boiled lobster with melted butter or dollop of mayo. Gets to be quite uninspiring after a while, especially when some places overcook the poor crustacean. Have you tried homard a la broche, or homard thermidor, or homard armoricaine instead? Quebec is very close to Maine...

Movie studios happy to have consumers wait it out

[jaypaulw]

The more DVDs you buy now, the more movies you'll end up buying for a second time when you do end up switching to HD. I think that's why paramount was happy to take cash to do the HD DVD exclusivity thing. If they really were interested in selling HD movies todays, they would have been better off getting in the Blu ray camp.

I guarantee that once people have an HD TV and some sort of HD player, they will be disappointed by the quality of their DVDs when compared with what content they do enjoy in HD. They will repurchase movies and tv shows for a second time to enjoy the upgrade in quality and the studios will take your cash all over again.

JP

Most consumers are idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Never mind hd-dvd vs. blu-ray. Most consumers don't even realize that their HDTV's are set to the wrong aspect ratio. I don't know how many places I have to go to that have the 4:3 image in stretch mode to 16:9 because "otherwise she don' fit!"

Text!

[ArikTheRed]

To me - that is the major difference between HD and SD. I LOVE being able to clearly read text on TV and movies. Not just on-screen like sub-titles, buyt the ability to read text on documents in the show, which would otherwise be fuzzy. Is it worth it? Maybe not to some, but I enjoy the extra little dimension. As Bill Maher called it: early addoption is a nerd tax. Either you are willing to pay it or not.

Re:Text!

[Kimos]

But this isn't early adoption anymore. Both Bluray and HDDVD had players on the market in mid 2006. Now films are available on both formats in almost any store that sells DVDs. Current video game consoles incorporate both formats.

This isn't a tax on early adoption, it's a levy paid to support the feud between the formats. There is heavy market resistance because of customer confusion and a marginal increase in video/audio quality with no other benefits.

Re:Upconversion sub$100? You get what you pay for.

[corsec67]

Best upconverting dvd player that I have found, and has the bonus of not prevening user operations.

who will win

[Anonymous Coward]

I beleieve one of the 2 formats will win out and I will wait to see which one ends up on top - in the vhs/beta war, one industry had the biggest impact on vhs winning out - that would be the porn industry. when they standardize on a format, you can bet that format will win.

Stores determine who wins

[tentimestwenty]

This is an interesting point. I'm in the audio business so I know a bit about selling formats. The other way one of the formats will win is if retailers get off the fence and just choose a format. Then customers will have artificially easier access to only one. Personally, I am telling people to go for Blu-Ray for the simple reason that is sounds different than "DVD" and people get confused between HD-DVD and DVD. i.e. "why would I need that, it's just DVD right?"

Re:Stores determine who wins

[SanityInAnarchy]

You're assuming a different brand of stupidity.

Currently, I'm assuming that people will actually be aware of HD-DVD, but that it sounds similar to DVD will be reassuring. That Blu-Ray will sound new and strange, but HD-DVD will just be more of what was good about DVD. Which isn't entirely innaccurate, as HD-DVD is managed by the DVD forum, the same group that controls DVD.

I do believe HD-DVD is technically better, but I'm biased -- I develop them for a living.

I broke down and bought one

[sheldon]

Wasn't my original intention. But I ended up selling my old rear projection screen and buy a Sharp 46d64u lcd flat panel.

I wanted a new DVD player with HDMI.(all my old ones were component video only) So I was looking around and they were like $100, or $200 for a good one.

Amazon was having a sale on the Toshiba HD-DVD. The A3 was around $200, and you got ten free movies. Researching it a bit, decided I needed the A35 unless I also wanted to upgrade my surround receiver. It was $299, but you got the ten free movies, and they were all decent movies most of which I don't have. So I figured for the extra $100 or so i was going to spend, I got about $150 in movies. Why not, just to try it.

I can get hidef disks thorugh Netflix. I have no intention on buying any more HD-DVDs until I see what happens with the formats, or players that play both HD and BR are cheap.

the HD-DVD player shows up later this week. Then I'll know if it's worthwhile or not.

In my opinion, from what I've seen of the specs and such, I'm more interested in the audio capabilities.

Black Friday specials happen once a year

[tepples]

I bought my Toshiba HD-DVD player for $99. That was the "Black Friday special" price. What should people do between now and Friday, November 28th, 2008, when I expect this special to be offered again? Just buy a PLAYSTATION 3 video game console and pray BD wins?

More than quality

[brunes69]

Something people don't seem to get, and I don't hear talked about much, is that there is more to HD DVD and Blu-Ray than a jump in quality. The amount of interactivity with the movie is simply amazing and orders of magnitude beyond DVD.

Take Trasnformers for example. The ability to watch this movie with overlayed HUD displaying info and Michael Bay and the actors popping up for PIP descriptions of various scenes? Amazing. Don't even get me started with the web-based content that can inter-mesh with the movie.

You can't do this with DVD, and for people who really love movies, it is spectacular. I know some people don't give a crap about this and just want to watch the film, but really, these kind of people don't buy ANY movies, they just rent them.

IMO this is what is going to happen to the market - people who love movies and buy them will make the jump to Blu-Ray or HD DVD. People who are mainly just renters are all going to migrate to VOD type services, either online or from their Satellite or cable companies. I mean, if all you care about is watching a movie once, why would you invest in a $100 HD player when you can order them on demand in HD from your cable company?

And one other note - for people who ARE into movies and are still sitting on the fence, realize what I realized a few months ago. The players are so cheap now (~ $100 for HD-DVD on sale, $350 for PS3), that you can take a chance on a format. The war is not going to be "decided" for at least another year, if not more. And whenever it is decided, it is not like your existing player and discs are going to stop working. Whenever it is decided, if the other format wins out, you will for sure be able to get a cheap dual format player, and continue to enjoy your existing HD collection, which you have been able to appreciate while other people who are sitting on the fence are twiddling their thumbs!

Re:More than quality

[PitaBred]

I can afford to take a chance on a format. I'm just not going to patronize a business that's consumer-hostile. I have self respect, and if they don't want to provide a product that will allow me to use it as *I* see fit, rather than under "license" as they see fit, fuck 'em. I'll spend my money elsewhere.

Re:More than quality

[Anonymous Coward]

The amount of interactivity with the movie is simply amazing and orders of magnitude beyond DVD.

A good example of this interactivity is the D-Box functionality that comes with a lot of the Blu-Ray movies. I've only felt it in a demo setting, but it was quite cool.

FWIW, I'm not sure Michael Bay popping up anywhere is such a good idea. I think most movie lovers would agree. But the features you described, if used with a director that doesn't suck, would definitely be pretty cool.

Re:More than quality

[TexNex]

"[brunes69 (86786)] You can't do this with DVD, and for people who really love movies, it is spectacular. I know some people don't give a crap about this and just want to watch the film, but really, these kind of people don't buy ANY movies, they just rent them."

By this statement you are either a shill for the industry or are just making a grossly exaggerated generalization. I have ~400 titles in my collection and will not "upgrade" to the "new" format until one is decided upon. Hell, by the time that happens we may be getting movies on divx holo-chips (wishful thinking, I know). Just because you like some added extras with the primary content that you purchased doesn't mean that said additional content is worth forking out another ~$500 to see. We buy the movie to see the movie and anything extra is nice but, the really good extras are usually in a different version of the movie that the company wants you buy at a later date. So what are you really getting, the actors are still the same, as are the directors & writers, so you're not getting much for the added price. I'd even say that you are getting less because with the added resolution you can see every defect, which, detracts from the fantasy.

As for your statement of get off the fence & don't worry your format of choice will be supported I ask you to look back at the betmax/VHS/LaserDisk war and see who survived it. And what happened with HD-Digital tapes & mini-discs. DVD is the standard and will stay as such until there is a clear path to a new standard with the same price as the DVD version and that ain't going to happen soon.

Re:More than quality

[brunes69]

As for your statement of get off the fence & don't worry your format of choice will be supported I ask you to look back at the betmax/VHS/LaserDisk war and see who survived it. And what happened with HD-Digital tapes & mini-discs. DVD is the standard and will stay as such until there is a clear path to a new standard with the same price as the DVD version and that ain't going to happen soon.

This isn't an apt comparison because these were analog formats with different form factors so cheap dual--format players were not possible. A more apt comparison is the war between DVD+R and DVD-R formats, which lasted 6 months to a year before manufacturers got sick of no one adopting their hardware and just all started supporting both. At first these dual format burners were expensive, but scaling of the market took care of that, and for the past few years it has been basically impossible to not be able to buy a burner that burns both formats. The same thing will happen with HD-DVD and Blu-Ray over the next year or two.

One company, but not the one you are thinking of..

[SuperKendall]

While Disney is firmly in the Blu-Ray camp right now, I'm sure they are aware of the rapid drop in the price of HD-DVD players

Just as they are aware of the still tepid HD-DVD sales, especially in comparison to Blu-Ray. The players are so cheap now people are buying them as upscaling DVD players and ignoring the HD war.

Besides Disney, if Toshiba can lower the licensing fees for the HD-DVD format, that could interest companies now selling only Blu-Ray discs to support HD-DVD.

If the hundreds of millions that Microsoft is offering companies is not providing incentive enough to switch, it's unlikley a small drop in license fees will have an impact.

The company that could change everything is actually Warner - there are predictions they are going to go Blu-Ray only soon, and with Microsoft pressing the issue by demanding Microsoft exclusive access to downloaded media in exchange for continued HD-DVD support, they have good reason to jump ship.

I do agree with you about downloading HD content, even 7GB is a daunting chunk of data to download and store for most people.

Wrong definition

[SuperKendall]

"In physics, a quantum leap or quantum jump is a change of an electron from one energy state to another within an atom. "

Dude, you totally are confused. Here's the Wikipedia definition of Quantum Leap:

"Quantum Leap is an American science fiction television series that ran for 96 episodes from March 1989 to May 1993 on the NBC network."

So since it's TV, a "Quantum Leap" is something like "Jumping the Shark". And we all know that sharks are white, and that white is the color of snow on mountains, and mountains are quite tall. So obviously a "Quantum Leap" is a pretty big amount!

not ready for HD yet

[theeddie55]

Look at advertising, British TV commercials are still saying out now on DVD (also on HD), when it switches to out now on HD (also on DVD) Then it's time to switch, that's when the switch to DVD happened for me and most of the people I know.

best reason: games

[kencurry]

We just bought a 40 inch 1080p samsung.

What's most impressive so far? Game systems.

We had an xbox360 on an older analog set, I ported it over and fired up Halo3 and was really impressed. I could see detail in the game that I didn't know was there. As far as blueray vs. HD, I just bought the PS3 as the price was about the same as a decent BD player. Again, I was really impressed by the game graphics, Call of Duty is amazing in 1080p.

Final comments on blueray movies: yes, resolution is impressive, but hires does not make up for a poor movie; Spiderman3, I'm looking at you.

Downside is television,- a regular cable signal (we have Cox in san diego), looks really bad, almost unwatchable. I've ordered an HDTV antenna, and I'll see how that goes, but I don't want to pay for the increased cost of digital cable

Does not affect you

[SuperKendall]

I won't buy either BluRay or HD-DVD because the encrypted hi-def HDMI output won't work with my component video 5 year old 1080i television set.

I have a 1080i projector with component and DVI (not HDCP) inputs. I can do 1080i just fine from a PS3.

Movies currently do not use the ICT token, which is what would degrade resolution for people like you and me. Well, not quite true - they use it on European HD-DVD titles that you might be tempted to import. But even then, the resolution drops down to 720p which is still heads and shoulders above DVD.

So you can buy and still enjoy the formats today with your TV for many, many years. Personally I don't think they'll ever bother to engage the ICT token as it will prove to be pointless.

You do not even need HDCP for that

[SuperKendall]

At the time I thought that I needed an HDCP-compatible monitor in order to use the PS/3 in high-res mode. (I didn't realize that you only need a HDCP-enabled monitor if you want to watch Blue-Ray movies at high-res.)

You can watch Blu-Ray movies from a PS3 just fine in HD over the component or plain DVI outputs (analog or no HDCP). The only thing that doesn't do Hi-Def over that connection is upscaling normal DVD's.

$100 = mass market

[otis wildflower]

I was hoping that Toshiba would keep selling the 1080i/720p player for $100, because that's where the mass market takes notice. It was encouraging to see that pricing for the black friday specials, but not so much now that the price is more like $169 or so..

And for the substantial majority of installed HDTV, 1080i/720p is fine as that's what their set is. By the time a majority of installed HDTVs are 1080p, I would hope that both HDDVD and Bluray (or whichever is the final winner) or combo players are $99 or less at 1080p.

BTW, at least on the HDDVD side, well over 90% of discs are 1080p24 (film) VC-1 or AVC, and catalog stuff on Amazon is like $20/disc.

TB Solution (HD & BLU-Ray)

[Anonymous Coward]

Mempile
http://www.mempile.com/

New DVD-sized disc to hold 1 to 5 terabytes of data
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070829-new-dvd-sized-disc-to-hold-terabytes-of-data.html

convert images to near-HD quality?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought this worked only on CSI. Sorry to sound dumb, but how do they do that, mathematically speaking? Or is it just some interpolation snake oil?

Seems an easy choice to me.

[FatSean]

I bought Stone's "Alexander" used on DVD for 5 bucks and didn't notice till I got home that it was 'fullscreen'.

Utter. Shit. The plot itself was weak, but the visuals were what sold the movie to me. Visuals completely destroyed by pan-and-scan that ensured I saw a character's head while speaking but cut out so much of the scene.

This may sound harsh, but I consider anyone who 'prefers' pan-n-scan to be a soft-headed half-wit.

Re:Seems an easy choice to me.

[Blakey Rat]

I agree. I'd much rather be "wasting" a few pixels to see the beautiful 70mm effects in 2001: A Space Odyssey in the correct format. Hell, the DVD's throwing 50% of the visual information of the 70mm film out anyway, what's the difference if it tosses out another 25% or so?

Or for a more geek-accessible example: That scene in Empire Strikes Back, where one of the Star Destroyers in Darth Vader's fleet gets hit by an asteroid while the captain is holo-conferencing with Vader, and the captain puts up his hands and screams before the hologram gets cut off? It's completely gone in the pan-n-scan version!

Re:Seems an easy choice to me.

[Viol8]

"This may sound harsh, but I consider anyone who 'prefers' pan-n-scan to be a soft-headed half-wit."

Or maybe thay have a small TV. Try watching letterbox format on my 16in portable and see how long it takes to get eye strain. We're not half wits , we're just not rich kids who can afford the latest 40in HDTV.

I prefer On Demand...

[HockeyPuck]

I went out and bought a Pioneer 50" plasma (5080). I upgraded my cable from basic analog to digital with the HD channels. I then realized that for the most part I'd rather watch a movie once via HD OnDemand (Comcast $5/movie), than go out a buy a $500 player + movies). I have a whole set of shelves of DVDs that I don't watch anymore.

I actually like how Comcast has implemented the ondemand system. Using my cable remote I select ondemand, choose the movie , accept that I want to pay the $5, and begin watching it. I'm used to renting DVDs so I don't have an urge to burn the movie to build a DVD library to show my friends/family 'look how many movies I have which I don't watch.' The watching of the movie has ZERO impact on the speed of my internet connection. (I'm afraid that if iTunes did something similar, it could impact surfing/VOIP etc, to stream down a 15GB HD program).

If Comcast had a wider selection of HD on demand (currently ~20 at any one time, and it's rotating monthly) it would be better, but I like the model.

Dual harms the market

[SuperKendall]

Most of us are waiting for inexpensive, dual format (Blueray & HD-DVD) players

Bad idea.

1) it's cheaper to buy two separate players than one dual player.

2) Buying and using a dual player supports the format war. Supporting the war means continued lackluster consumer uptake, for reasons the article mentions. And that in turn means fewer titles and catalog conversions for BOTH formats.

Pick a format, and stick to it. Ending the war is the only way to have HD media take off and that's better for everyone.

I recommend Blu-Ray, since it has better studio support, a far more interesting set of upcoming and past releases, and has had clear sales dominance for the past year now. But just choose.

Re:Dual harms the market

[PitaBred]

It's a bitch to deal with two players, feeding two sets of cables, two different inputs, etc. Keeps you from being able to plug in another device in the worst case. I do agree with you on Blu-Ray, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna deal with the DRM bullshit of it.

Re:Dual harms the market

[0xdeadbeef]

What is better for everyone is for Sony to lose. Or have you forgotten?

I Work For

[JoeInnes]

I work for a major electrical retailer in the U.K., and I can tell you that we do not sell Blu-ray players. We have ONE in stock at the shop I work at, and no-one's even asked about it (we use it to drive the big screens we have on the walls). HD-DVD players... I don't think I've ever even seen one.

In terms of quality, it is obvious even to an untrained eye which is a hi-def source, and which is a normal DVD, as long as the screen they're viewing it on is up to it.

However, upscaling DVD players are excellent (the ones that take a DVD, and interpolate, giving the impression of hi-def) - unless you have a decent T.V. If you have a decent T.V., the picture just doesn't look quite right - it looks more like an episode of Coronation Street than a film (which is an artifact of the interpolation). If the screen is a lower quality, it does genuinely improve picture quality many fold. If the screen isn't very good anyway, there's no point buying a hi-def media player though.

Re:I Work For

[Harold Halloway]

Would you agree that UK retailers' attitude to HD has been woeful? The main High Street retailer in my area is Currys Digital and all the HD sets in the local shops are connected to an analogue component video SD source which at best looks very average. In addition, the sets themselves (especially the ones in the shop windows) are set up dreadfully (i.e. not at all) and actually look worse than my six-year-old Tosh CRT. There's no wonder that consumers are not excited by HD yet.

Re:I Work For

[JoeInnes]

I would agree with that for the most part. My company uses HDMI inputs running off a powerful AV receiver and a few switching boxes for all of our screens, except for four which sit in the middle of the shop floor, which we run off an upscaling DVD player.

You're right about the set-up, it's a common misconception that the T.V. looks at its best if you just don't touch it, you need to play with the colour temperature, contrast, brightness, and any other setting you can find to get the best picture for your viewing conditions.

By the way, if you shelled out a reasonable amount for your CRT, the picture will look better than most of the crappy LCDs they have on display at most high street retailers. It's the same with anything really, you get what you pay for. If you pay under £500 for a screen bigger than 26", then it won't be particularly good, and that extends up the scale, all the way to plasmas (which, incidentally, I suspect will die out, thankfully. The picture quality on them is terrible compared to a decent LCD, and LCD technology is getting better and cheaper all the time). As someone who hangs about on slashdot, you're probably well aware that if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys, so I'm willing to bet you spent a decent amount on your telly, which is why it looks better than most of the ones in the windows at Currys - it is!

Is it better to upconvert on the DVD player or TV?

[KeithH]

So I've got a spanky new 1080p Panasonic Plasma and I'm pretty impressed with widescreen DVDs. Since the display is 1080p, it follows that the TV itself is upconverting. Is there a marked improvement when I let the DVD player do the upconverting instead?

As a followup question, do I need a HDMI connector to take advantage of an up-converting DVD player? Currently, I'm using composite cables.

Thanks

Don't forget subtitles

[bdh]

Like many ./ geeks, I'm an anime fan. I also watch a lot non-animated movies with subtitles.

I'm an old fart, got my first Betamax back around 1983 or so. Eventually, in 1990 I switched to VHS because I wanted to, you know, be able to rent movies.

As anyone who watched/rented foreign language films can attest, just getting a subtitled tape was often a pain. The stores had to stock two different copies of the title: one subtitled, one dubbed. For anime titles, this was extremely difficult, because 90% of the public prefers dubs, no matter how bad. So, a lot of the big chains simply didn't carry subs. And for the stores that did, the cost of a subtitled version was often 25% higher than the dub, despite the fact that subtitling costs are insignificant compare to the cost of dubbing and remastering audio.

And of course, you'd often rent a sub, go home, and find that the clerk had accidentally given you the dub anyway.

DVDs made that all go away. The dub and the sub were the same disk.

Sure, it didn't hurt that DVDs also had higher capacity; most series that were released with 2-3 episodes per VHS tape came out with 4 episodes on the DVD. And of course, the DVD was higher quality. And DVDs didn't stretch/degrade, and they didn't need to be rewound, etc. But all those factors were secondary to the fact that DVDs ended the sub/dub wars.

Originally, around 1999, that was a strong argument to go DVD. It wasn't a killer argument; remember that entry level DVD players then were about $500-$1,000; the cost of HD-DVD and Blue Ray players today.

However, in somewhere around July of 2001, many studios simply stopped releasing subtitled VHS tapes altogether. You had a choice of dubbed VHS tape, complete with annoying squeaky voice actors, or DVD. Deal with it.

That's what pushed me, and a lot of my geek friends, into going to DVD.

Now, looking to BR/HD, what compelling argument is there to switch from DVD? Hell, I've still got a 17 year old 27" TV set. I'm still waiting for prices to drop on the flat screen TVs before I bother to shell out the cash, never mind HD/BR.

Also, from the article itself, you need to have a 40" or larger 1080p set to enjoy the benefits. That rules out anyone with a 37" set or lower. Keep in mind that anyone (like me) who purchased a wall unit in the 1980s or 1990s would have to replace it, since no TV back then was more than 35", so anything larger than 37" won't fit. Not a lot of people are going to completely gut their living room, in addition to everything else.

The bottom line is that in addition to video quality, DVD solved a number of problems with VHS tapes, both at the consumer and retailer level. HD/BR are higher quality, but they don't really solve any outstanding problems with DVD. They may be a boon to retailers, but consumers aren't going to get a lot out of it.

Once HD/BR readers and burners become common on new PCs, and media becomes cheaper, you might see a migration. But at the moment, it's only the lunatic fringe/beta tester/videophile types that are bothering.

0.4% of movies are available

[Geordie Korper]

As the article says only 400 of the 90,000 movies the Netflix has are available in HD-DVD. In my case only 1 of the 50 movies in my queue is "available" in HD and it has been stuck in pending release for 6 months. Meanwhile I get to watch 2-3 HD movies a week on my HD Tivo with no stupid can't be skipped warnings...

Re:Is it better to upconvert on the DVD player or

[myz24]

Depends on the scaler being used but as many will say on sites like avsforum.com, garbage in garbage out. Personally I find that with a good scaler the quality really isn't that bad. If you're happy with how your Panasonic set is doing the scaling then I wouldn't bother getting a different DVD player.

Astounding Breakthrough in Signal Processing

[skywire]

DVD players that can convert images to near high-definition quality can be found for under $100
Chinese dvd player manufacturers have managed to find a way to violate the laws of logic and extract more information than is present in a signal? I must have missed the headline.

Re:Astounding Breakthrough in Signal Processing

[Bigjeff5]

It's called upconverting, and it doesn't extract more info from the image, it ADDS information to the signal. I hope you'll agree that doesn't break the laws of logic, eh? Here's the deal, when you play a DVD, which operates at 720p, on a 1080i or especially a 1080p TV, LCD's in particular, the resolutions don't match up (obviously). So what you get is a picture that is actually WORSE than a 720p TV would give. What upconverting does is essentially split the 720p picture up and reformatting it in such a way that it plays very cleanly on a 1080i or 1080p TV. Since your eyes cannot distinguish the difference between the 720p and 1080p outside of about 12 feet for a 50 inch TV, the picture quality is, for all intents and purposes, the same. Does that help any? Or do I have to actually drag out the specs and tell you every little thing about how upconverting works?

Re:Astounding Breakthrough in Signal Processing

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, since the cheap chinese DVD player is perfectly happy when pixel 1 is blue and pixel 2 is yellow, if it suddenly has to display at a higher resolution and has to decide what to make pixel 1.5 it goes with green which isn't quite as nice as actually knowing what colour to make it, but it still looks quite nice. Now clearly with more signal information an HD player knows to make the pixel blue or yellow or green or red exactly as it should be leading to even better quality, however green was probably a good enough guess that it already looks quite nice. This is even more true when pixel 1 and pixel 2 are both blue or at least closer in colour than blue to yellow.

Re:Astounding Breakthrough in Signal Processing

[skywire]

You are so confused. Read up on DVDs (and take a course in information theory) before you next presume to talk down to anyone on this subject.

Re:Astounding Breakthrough in Signal Processing

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF are you smoking??? None of what you said makes any sense at all!

Re:Astounding Breakthrough in Signal Processing

[Anonymous Coward]

Or do I have to actually drag out the specs and tell you every little thing about how upconverting works?

Please do. Now that would be informative.

Re:Astounding Breakthrough in Signal Processing

[ezdude]

Hey, a smug post on /. What else is new? First, Samsung and Phillips both have players under $100 that upconvert to 1080p. Last time I checked, those companies were not Chinese. Second, "near high-definition" can really mean anything. Sure, a true HD signal has more information than a DVD. I assume the poster knows this already. Upconverted DVD's, in my actual experience, are "near" in the sense that a 128 kbs is "near CD quality". Sure there's more detail in a HD-signal, but if you sit back at a normal viewing distance, like most people actually do in their homes, the differences are not that substantial. And let me say that I have a Samsung 46" HDTV (LNT4661F). I was one of the early adopters to the DVD format (got my first player in 1998 for $500). It was a gigantic leap forward for home video. HD-DVD, Blu-Ray are great, but a format war is a PITA. For now, I get along with an upconverting DVD player, and HD television. I'll wait until the war is over.

I have good news for all of you.

[foxtrot]

Blu-ray will win; you can go out and buy a Blu-ray player and all your favorite movies without worry. No, it has nothing to do with whether or not they're technically superior, or which studios are backing Blu-ray. It's not gonna win because everyone who bought a Playstation 3 got one built in, it's not going to win because the marketing folks are smarter, or anything like that. It's even simpler:

I bought an HD-DVD player.

-F

Re:I have good news for all of you.

[Tallis]

No he didn't! It's a trick! Deviously, he actually bought a Blu-ray player and *claimed* that he bought an HD-DVD player. Since whatever he buys is doomed to fail, he wants us all to buy Blu-ray so that we can all sink on the same ship!

1366x768 is HD

[JeremyR]

Last I checked, 720p was considered "HD", and 1366x768 is more than enough resolution to display it. Sure, some scaling will have to take place (assuming the full panel is used, that is), but there's no reason this shouldn't be called "HD Ready."

The choice format for Antigua

[Amphetam1ne]

H.264 in the MKV container. Primary choice of HD pirates everywhere.

Too Many Choices

[just_forget_it]

I think a lot of people are sitting the format war out simply because the whole experience of buying a TV/Movie player has become exponentially more complicated in recent years.

It used to be the case that all you needed to know when buying a television was how big of a screen you wanted. There was only one way to plug your antenna/VCR into the back. My TV for instance has 4 sockets in the back, three for component A/C and one for coaxial.

Now, you have to juggle prices and screen size along with resolution. Then, you have to make sure you buy the right HDMI cable revision, line up HD service, and pick a side in the movie format war, or else suffer through DVD upscaling. People don't like being forced to become home theater nerds just to buy a damn television set, that's why HD hasn't taken off in the US.

Not inaccurate...

[SanityInAnarchy]

HD-DVD is, in fact, by the DVD Forum, the same guys who manage DVD itself. So, more than Blu-Ray, an HD-DVD could actually be called a "High-Def DVD".

Of course, that's all politics...

Why risk it? Upconvert your existing DVD's

[willbry]

In my opinion, it's too risky to chance either Blu Ray or HD DVD. Does Betamax ring a bell? For now, I'm sticking with a decent upconverting DVD player. Sure, the resolution isn't exactly what Blu Ray or HD DVD is, but with a decent upconverting player, it's almost as good. Beside, I'm not ready to replace my huge DVD library with their Blu Ray or HD DVD equivalent! http://dvdupconvert.wordpress.com/

DVD vs. HD Quantum Leap with conditions

[Bo0bMeIsTeR]

First off let me start by saying a few things. You cannot create something from nothing (upconvert DVD player). If you could, we would all be using 2 megapixel digitals. With that out of the way. HD-DVD and Blu-Ray both have far superior video and audio quality. First the audio, many say it is marketing. However it is not i promise. Those of you with you home theater in a box, or cheap systems, will not know the difference. But throw in a processor rated for Dolby-HD and DTS-HD, high quality speakers and subwoofer, and decent power provided by separate amps, and the difference in the audio quickly becomes apparent. Uncompressed audio (HD) versus compressed audio (DVD) is vastly different, mainly in the high end is noticeable. Once again this is with a system costing many thousands, rather then a few hundred or a thousand tops. Video quality is also far better, once again you need necessary hardware. Personally after testing both formats with a Samsung HLS-5687W DLP, BDP-1400 Blu-ray, and xbox HD-DVD. They are very close, one thing i did notice, the dark scenes in a blu-ray seem to have more noise then in HD-DVD. The blu-ray has also had numerous firmware issues with certain movies. HD-DVD is simpler, and seems better for your average joe. However both are extremely better then DVD, and upconvert DVD. My personal opinion, HD-DVD is a better buy at the time. Toshiba HDA1 (i believe) is around $200. (Less then i paid for my first DVD player). I think that because of low adoption rates, both format will continue to exists for some time, however one will inevitably be lost. For grandpa he will not know nor care about the difference. However for the new generations, used to high res computer displays and vivid gaming, the new HD movies will also work their way into society. TV prices are dropping as are the players. With sub services such as netflix carrying all of both formats for no extra cost we have ease of access. In all DVD vs HD is as big a gain as DVD vs VHS, if not more.

Re:DVD vs. HD Quantum Leap with conditions

[Bo0bMeIsTeR]

Something i forgot to mention, all these upgrades were purchased within the last year, the reason behind it all? My gaming. The xbox360 led to the DLP, led to the HD-DVD, then the blu-ray. I see this happening with many others also.

HD-DVD, then.

[SanityInAnarchy]

They should be happy to know that HD-DVD has NO region coding, and discs can either have AACS or no DRM.

Blu-Ray requires AACS and allows even harsher DRM.

What ouch?

[mu51c10rd]

This Toshiba is going for 199 at Best Buy for an HD-DVD player.

Yes, but Quebec is full of arrogant French S-birds

[Anonymous Coward]

Quebec is very close to Maine...
Yes, but Quebec is full of arrogant French shitbirds.

I have yet to figure out why Canada has not kicked Quebec out. Every 4-5 years Quebec tries to leave Canada. How pussified is Canada that they haven't had an ass-full of that yet and kicked Quebec the Fuck out? Most of Canada's money comes from Alberta now-a-days anyhow.

Plus the Quebecers refuse to speak English even though they shoved French down the throats of the rest of us.

Arrogant French shitbirds.

Money, it's the answer

[6-tew]

This gear it still too expensive. Eventually it will become affordable, then it will be adopted. Just like every other step forward in home electronics. Except mini-disc. Pretty sure they're dead.

I know I am one of the few in my circle of friends who knows what DRM is, and since everyone of them has PS3 (yeah really, weird isn't it?) and ginormous TVs I think the trend is one the way.

Lets be rational for a moment, will they cabal of evil corporations foisting this technology on us just say: "Well, I guess no one wants any of this stuff, we'll just have to go back to making DVDs. Too bad, I really thought this HD-DVD thing had legs." And then walk away shaking their heads sadly. Really, think that'll happen?

Better encoding format at better bitrates

[DamnStupidElf]

Bluray and HD-DVD use H.264, which has a ton of features that make the picture look nicer. Playing around with re-encoding DVDs using x264 tools, I've found that a lot of the blocking artifacts go away with H.264 because the codec was specifically designed to deblock well. Additionally, you can get MPEG2 quality H.264 movies at about a third to half of the bit rate. HD-DVD can also use some Microsoft codec, which I assume uses some of the same tricks H.264 does. Combined, that should be enough to give photograph quality to most still frames. It's all up to the people doing the encoding and how much motion is in the entire movie, though.

Even DVDs are insufficient to encode all movies perfectly. Even at 9800kb/s, my Van Helsing DVD has horrible blocking artifacts during some motion-heavy scenes (first harpy scene, for reference). Re-encoding with x264 isn't going to help there, since the source material is so poor. On the upside, I can drop the bit rate and save some space on my media server. If I ever get a HD drive, I'll compare the HD version of the movie to see if they've managed to fix that scene.

Comparison to SACD

[blitzkrieg3]

Having just read the article on how people don't care about SACD and rip most things to MP3 anyway, I think this offers a pretty good comparison. Customers just don't care about the extra quality that they can get with HDDVD or Blu Ray. DVD quality is heads and shoulders above vhs and for most people that's good enough. You're more likely to find them buying more and more low def movies for their ipod or phone right now, just like customers buy mp3s for their mp3 players.

Competition

[xarien]

People are crazy to not jump in right now with HD discs being as cheap as they are. Almost every retailer offers buy one get one free offers. Who cares if it comes to a stalemate as long as it drives the price down and the consumer is able to pick either format (before those dual players) and buy the discs at dvd prices.

Fansubs, maybe.

[SanityInAnarchy]

Just an idea, and I don't have time to make a post as long as some of my others on this thread -- just check my posting history...

But an HD-DVD can download new versions of anything on the disc except video, and the only reason for video is that persistent storage bandwidth is less than the video bandwidth (so most video downloads will be standard def). It may even be possible to download additional audio tracks -- I'll have to check with the people who know when I get to work, but it seems likely.

That's not to say that every disc will come with this capability, but every player does come with persistent storage and an Ethernet jack, and any disc that wants to can be connected.

This means that if they wanted to, say, support fansubs, they could. It won't support as flashy subs as, say, the current Dattebayo releases, but it would give you all the features -- animated subtitles, subtitles appearing at arbitrary places (not just the bottom of the screen), etc.

Of course, that's my pitch because I work in the industry, and I could do it myself. I would much rather see us all move to Matroska/h264/aac or something, with fansubs either built-in or available as SRTs or similar. But it is most definitely an improvement over DVD.

By the way -- it may not be as obvious on anime, but the difference is obvious on my 20" monitor at home. But it doesn't have HDCP, and neither does my video card, so I'm stuck with 720p downloads, which are still noticeably better than DVD.

For me. it's the content.

[Anonymous Coward]

Movies about exploding cars don't interest me. I'm holding out until the Criterion Collection goes hidef.

Sort of Waiting

[Bad Mamba Jamba]

Here's how it breaks down for me

1. A la Nyquist your final digital quality can only be as good as the original media. The original media for most older movies doesn't have enough resolution for full on 1080p HD. Upconverting makes a lot of sense for 99% of the content out there.
2. Only certain newer movies are even of interest to me in HD because they have eye candy that makes HD worth it. But most movies aren't good because they have tasty eye candy, they're good because they have a great story. On rare occasion you'll get both and that's an HD worthy title.
3. HD disks are expensive. Why spend so much for HD content on a movie that isn't interesting in HD when DVD works just as well?

You add all that up and I'm left with one conclusion. And it's a conclusion the studios don't want to hear because I'm sure they make all their money on movie sales not the players. That conclusion is I'm better off just buying players for both formats (or a dual format player if cheaper) and renting from Netflix or Blockbuster or whatever. I can watch the movies that count on HD and don't risk dumping a ton of cash into something that may die on the vine. So in effect I'm sort of waiting - enjoying my HD now with the current formats, but not investing in it because the future looks too uncertain.

In line with other comments on this topic and on a slight tangent; I grow weary of purchasing the same movie over and over because the format dies. I've bought Star Wars at least four times - VHS, Laser Disk, DVD x2. I'm sure George Lucas has a special HD collector's edition in the works. Sorry George, I'm done. I want to purchase viewing rights to the movie and then freely view the movie no matter what device I'm on for the rest of my life. Be it my Plasma TV in the living room, my iPod, my PC, whatever, wherever. We shouldn't be buying the media format, we should be buying the rights to view a movie. Again not the answer Hollywood wants I'm sure, since I'm sure they make tons of cash selling the same movies to us over and over.

a solution looking for a problem

[roc97007]

I've generally been an early adopter. I just recently dug my Betamax out of the attic and sold it to a collector, still have an RCA CED disk player and two Laserdisk players in the closet. Was one of the first to own a DVD player ($799.95), bought a dual-mode, dual-layer DVD drive when they first became mainstream (about $300), so it was natural that read up on the competing HD formats and plan when to jump in.

The specs of both systems are decent, and they look like they're running neck-and-neck, so was settling down to wait until the dual mode players became affordable.

But the real test is what it looks like. The difference between Laserdisc and VHS is obvious. A well-crafted DVD blows most Laserdiscs away. (I can show you an A/B comparison on my own equipment.) The choice in either case was obvious. But but but... A DVD with a good anamorphic transfer at 480P, with component video or HDMI into a decent TV looks pretty darn good. Would we see the same quality jump with HD formats?

Only one way to find out. Drive to a couple A/V stores and do A/B comparisons between decently mastered conventional DVD and HD DVD, on decent players going to a good monitor.

My reaction.... Enh. Ok, I can see a little more detail on the HD side, in some scenes, if I look closely enough. But I can't make myself believe that it's worth the cost and inconvenience to upgrade. Moreover, it was apparent from observations during those A/V tests that Mr. and Mrs. Joe Consumer can't see any difference at all, and is wondering what the hoopla is all about.

Although the cost of the discs themselves seem to be fixed artificially low at about 20 - 30% more than conventional DVDs, the players are still 3 to 5 times more expensive than a good generic progressive scan DVD player. The gap is wider for dual-standard players.

On the convenience side, consider: Every HD-DVD or BluRay disk I buy is essentially an orphan for the next couple years. It won't play in the laptop, it won't play in the car, it won't play at Grandma's house, and you won't be able to take it over to your friend's house unless your friend is another geek with too much money. Now, I'm willing to put up with this for a striking increase in video quality, but the HD formats are just not that. It's a lot of expense and inconvenience for very little gain.

Moreover, you know that when "value engineering" sets in, there will be a big overlap between the best crafted DVDs and the worst crafted high def DVDs, and a corresponding overlap between the best DVD players and the worst HD players. You may end up with no gain or even a loss if the highdef disk is thrown together quickly to take advantage of "High Definition" mindshare.

Side note: If you're interested in seeing for yourself, don't bother with the stock A/V comparison that's looping at Best Buy. The geek fledglings who set up those demos don't necessarily know what they're doing, and you'll find yourself wondering why both DVD and high def DVD images look both the same, and both look poorer than your DVD/Monitor setup at home.

So this early adopter is just going to give a pass to high definition DVD. I suppose I'll own a player someday, if I'm in the market and the players are dirt cheap. Until then, it's just not important.

I confess, I am mildly interested in high def DVD burner drives when they get cheap enough. It already takes several dual-layer DVDs to back up my systems at home. Greater capacity would be a boon, once the drive and media cost drop to something reasonable.

VCR & VHS...

[antdude]

And quality sucks and don't last long like DVDs. I wished DVDs could hold more for writing/recording, especially for HD stuff.

I still use a VCR (no subscriptions!) but only for recording and playing my TV shows. I do have a computer (HDTV tuner -- no subscription too) for digital TV, but I don't like to leave it on when I am not at home and it uses a lot of power (no room to build another machine). All use OTA for TV feeds.

The don't buy pre-pack media

[SuperKendall]

I'll be damned if I'm gonna deal with the DRM bullshit of it.

I dislike the DRM aspect of it as much as anyone. But you don't have to buy Blu-Ray and support DRM - buy a Blu-Ray player, a Blu-Ray burner and then you are free of DRM, as long as you do not buy pre-packaged media.

You can still get HD video (though not as good) from "other sources". And if that seems unethical, buy the same video through whatever online channel may be around, or the DVD and call it good. The people that made the movie still get money, and you still get an HD movie. If they'll not let us engage fair-rights use in space shifting media, I see no reason why I can't choose to space-shift payments instead.

No, but you have

[SuperKendall]

I have not forgotten the Sony Rootkit at all.

But that's why I don't buy from Sony Music. You see, unlike you I remember that as with most giant megacorps, Sony Movies is a totally different entity from Sony Music is totally different from Sony Games. So in fact I do not support companies I do not like, but that has no bearing on buying from other components of Sony. It's not like profits from Sony Games and Sony Movies are going to prop up Sony Music in any way. It's not like the heads of those various companies do not have a huge degree of latitude in which the operate, or a minor technical facet like the rootkit was ever discussed at levels outside Sony Music before the shit hit the fan. In a large corporation, control is generally exerted from the highest levels to fix a problem, not to create them.

In the world of modern businesses, you can't just simply boycott "a name", it has to be more targeted or it's pointless.

I'm waiting

[Geoff]

You betcha. I'm waiting for:

1. One format to "win".

2. Prices to come down.

Pure and simple. Once I percieve it to be worth my while to move to HD, I will. In the meantime, it's expensive, and there's the risk of picking the "wrong" format.

HD = Impressive

[milsoRgen]

I just setup a 42" Sony Bravia, with a 5.1 yahmaha stereo system and Toshiba(?) HD-DVD Player. This was all for my girlfriends father, who is in his 60's... and very stubborn. You wouldn't believe how hard I had to fight to prevent the purchase of a fucking 100+ dollar TOSLINK cable... let alone trying to get him to wait on an HD choice... I'm sorry for a home user, any optical degradation on a 10-15 dollar cable is not going to be noticeable. Boy I let that best buy schmuck have it...
But I digress, HD-DVD looks absolutely fantastic on it. I'd say more so then a store demo in this, since you're in the comfort of your own home and have things tweaked to your specific likings. I really recommend watching the move 300 in HD. It'll let you appreciate the quality of the increased pixel count.
That being said, yeah it's definitely not worth it yet. We need a dual format player or at the very least a dual format disc... But if you're willing the take the plunge, damn it looks and sounds terrific!

Users must be blind

[Anonymous Coward]

HD-DVD (and BlueRay) offer an ENORMOUS increase in quality. When my wife can see it I am sure it is enormous. Granted, I work in visual effects; so this is my field. Now "HD" cable (ans satellite) signals are utter crap, compressed to the point of making them look no better than a DVD. People need to look at an HD disc to see something that is damn near the quality of the 2k and 4k film scans I work with everyday that go into these movies.

Of course if you still have a crap TV, or sit 30 feet from it then don't bother... But so what if you choose the "wrong" format? You can still watch all your movies that you buy on that format with your player. Netflix supports both formats (who cares about Blockbuster.. so 90s...). The worst it has cost you is the price of a player, which is a few hundred bucks. Does nobody who reads Slashdot have a job?

Captions in HD

[Buran]

Which system (either or both) has some sort of provision to display subtitles/captions over HDMI, and do all discs in that format have it?

That'll help me figure out which one I prefer, though I still probably won't buy a system yet.

I have a 27" 4:3 TV from 1998 and a job.

[FatSean]

If you can't afford a shitty 10-year-old 27" TV, you really need to get the fuck off of Slashdot and go back to school so you can get a real job. You can afford to buy these DVDs, but not a proper set? Yeah, you're a fool. Like those guys living in a shit-hole apartment so they can have a fancy car or something.

Re:I have a 27" 4:3 TV from 1998 and a job.

[BlueStraggler]

Anybody who watches TV needs to get the fuck back ON Slashdot and lay off the old media already. A 13" TV is good enough for keeping up with the Olympic Games once every two years, and tuning in for 9/11-level news events once every 5 or 10, but anything much larger is a real pain in move in and out of storage, and tends to make you stupid, fat, and cranky if you don't.

Re:I have a 27" 4:3 TV from 1998 and a job.

[Jeremy Erwin]

[i]but anything much larger is a real pain in move in and out of storage, and tends to make you stupid, fat, and cranky if you don't.[/i]

LCDs are much lighter--one of the reasons I went with LCD instead of CRT. Should I need to move it, it won't be a strain.

Re:I have a 27" 4:3 TV from 1998 and a job.

[toddestan]

A 16" portable tv isn't that far away from the typical computer monitor, you know.

Re:I have a 27" 4:3 TV from 1998 and a job.

[operagost]

We're talking about people who watch movies, not people like you.

Re:I have a 27" 4:3 TV from 1998 and a job.

[Viol8]

Congrats on show your age and (lack) of maturity. Grow up sonny.

Re:I have a 27" 4:3 TV from 1998 and a job.

[amRadioHed]

TV card dude. It's cheap, takes up no additional space and lets you use your computer monitor which I'm betting is larger than 13".

Still wondering if it's all legal

[wardk]

can I buy an HD movie and take it home and watch it without violating RIAA's self-proclaimed rights?

seems to risky to me, at least until we get some clarification

Why yes, yes someone does

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.adultswim.com/video/?episodeID=8a25c39215fcb0f90115fcfa634200a3

Not just the format, its the cost of the media

[Alzheimers]

Most consumers aren't just waiting for the the format war to be over. They're watching the cost of media and waiting to see which drops under the magic 19.99 first. That's when DVD's really took off over VHS cassettes -- when the VHS movies were coming out at $14.99 and the DVDs at $19.99.

As long as there's a huge price difference between a DVD and a HD-DVD or BluRay disk, most consumers aren't going to shell out the investment for a high-def player just for the privelage of spending MORE money for the same movie. And DVDs don't degrade with use like VHS tapes did, so there's no need to go out and rebuild your library if you choose to stay with the standard DVD and a decent up-converting player for the time being.

Forget porn. If this stalemate continues, the only winner will be direct download sites. Otherwise, the first to even up the cost of media with DVD is going to win the hearts of consumers.

skip the war. win.

[ne0n]

If you have a computer and Azureus then you can easily skip the entire format war and moved into the part where "the consumer wins."

hdbits is like a Tivo for format wars.

What about technological support

[Anonymous Coward]

Doing a quick search it seems to me that the format war is on fractured ground. HD-DVD seems to have a stronger hold on actual movies (sorta).
BUT when i go to some of the major computer manufacturers websites i see Blu-Ray with an advantage. Obiviously the major producers Dell, Sony and Apple, but also individual custom pc studios like Aeoncraft, Ibuypower, FalconNW, Alienware(which is under dell so...) I see all blu-ray burners and the occasional hybrid reader.
Then when i look at my local prices for the individual discs again blu-ray seems to have the upper hand. 1 25GB blu-ray for the same price as a 15GB HD-DVD. I seem to remember media price being rather important in the Videotape Format war sooo...
Many people say bluray drives are too expensive, well at my local computer store (http://microcenter.com/ ) i can pick up a blu-ray burner, a actual burner not just reader for $300 and there was a mail in rebate as well, so compare that to uhhh well i couldn't find an hd dvd burner to compare prices with. I even used Google shopping and still couldn't find one.

Now how that will affect the total outcome of the format war but that doesn't seem like a stale mate just like each side has won different battles

DVD players support DivX4/5

[OzFalcon]

I don't know what others are doing, But I just purchased a standard DVD player that had both USB and SDCard slots. (Some cheap AWA model from BigW) It plays DivX4/5. I have a few dvd's - but like many others, download some TV content like Dr Who and Battlestar (Boo Hyperdrive is canned). I simply copy the recent showing to USB drive. Plug into said DVD player and away I go.

IMHO "Discs" are to go the way of the dodo. Considering 1gb usb drives are now $10au and you can either have a few of them or just erase/copy/play again when you want. Distributors could easily manufacture Dongled ROM's or whatever to "Protect" their raw content. And transcoding to lower res (aka DivX) is fair use IMHO.

I certainly don't need/want Blu-ray or HD-DVD. As Im happy with the quality of DVD or Convenience of DivX (Kinda like the way many people are happy with mp3. ie. It's good enough.)

YES!

[Anonymous Coward]

In physics, a quantum leap or quantum jump is a change of an electron from one energy state to another within an atom.
So a quantum leap is a very, very tiny change, usually smaller than a nanometer. If the writer is stupid enough to think a sub-nanometer change means something big, why would one take anything he has to say seriously?

Indeed. That's almost as bad as measuring energy in nanometers. He must have an IQ of like 2 radians.

Cranky maybe.

[FatSean]

The news will do that to you. Stupid and Fat? Part of the reason my TV is old is that I spent a few hundred bucks on exersize equipment and I use it.

Most TV programming does suck, but it's quite often several levels above the 'discourse' here on Slashdot!

Hollywood vs. Early Adopters.

[rlp]

A couple of years ago my SD tube TV died so I went out and got an HD LCD set. It had a variety of different inputs including DVI (with HDCP support), but did not have HDMI. My wife just purchased a home theatre for Christmas. I spent a few hours wiring it up, and fired up the DVD. Used a HDMI to DVI cable. Looked great at 480P, so I looked around the menu to turn on upscaling. It was greyed out.

After a lengthy call with tech support (and being transferred to several different people), I finally discovered that my TV has an earlier (two year old version) of HDCP. The home theatre uses a newer version and rather than support and do a hand-shake with the back-rev HDCP, it simply disables upscaling. So, if I want higher (interpolated) resolution, I can buy a new HDTV. Gee, thanks a lot Hollywood.

Screwing early adopters is a great business strategy. Right up there with suing your customers. Needless to say, I will not be in the market for an HD / Blu-ray DVD in the near future.

How is the parent insightful?

[justthinkit]

Either some of the scanlines are wasted showing back bars.

Wasted Scanlines, Tonight on 60 Minutes.

On a marginally more serious note, what are you talking about? It isn't "wasted scanlines" but rather the smaller picture area that is the downside of an anamorphic movie -- e.g. on a 1920 x 1200 display, showing "2001: A Space Odyssey" at its native 2.35 to 1 resolution, 1920 by 817 pixels are used (for a picture area of 1,568,680) whereas a 4x3 butchering of 2001 abuses 1600 by 1200 pixels (picture area=1,920,000). So for those who must fill up their monitors with colored pixels, by all means go full screen! Come to think of it, maybe the butchery of 4x3 is meant for slasher flicks?

Or

I think we all figured out the drawbacks of pan-and-scan ten years ago.

I can't justify (the cost of) a high-def screen

[Kris_J]

As I go through my DVD haul this xmas on an old 68cm CRT, I find it very difficult to justify the cost of upgrading to high def, regardless of format. In a year or so, when my mother retires and starts doing the ebay selling thing again, I'm going to use the proceeds from selling all the crap I've collected over the years to fund a nice home cinema built around an HD projector. Until then I'll mostly be renting on DVD the stuff I want to see.

HD or BLUE-DVD needs to be cheaper

[Anonymous Coward]

$24 for a so-so movie? If BLue-ray camps want to be a clear winner, just make sure it cost $12.95

Well

[News for nerds]

the entire point of your speculation relies on a big "if" that is not at all apparent, in other words if things go with the current configuration that Disney is Blu-ray exclusive, then Blu-ray is on the winner's road. Is it what you want to express?

By the way 51GB HD DVD is vaporware, no HD DVD players currently on the market can play it. I'm surprised someone takes it seriously more than the paper spec on a standard doc annex.

No good DVR

[jridley]

I'm staying out of HD simply because there's no good way to build my own DVR. I've gotten too used to MythTV, and though I could record over-the-air stuff, that's all network garbage which I don't want. I'm a satellite user, so I can't record from there. Even over cable, all I could hope to record would be MAYBE local channels again if they were on the cable in QAM format.

I have a 720P projector, but for now I'm just feeding it with regular DVDs. I might go to HD eventually, if the players get down around $100, but for now DVD and SD is good enough.

What is the porn industry backing?

[wilec]

What is the porn industry backing? Will the major porn houses pick one instead of hedging bets by supporting both? This sounds expensive to me. If they do I suspect the one they pick may be the winner. From what I understand this is a big part of what sealed BetaMax's fate and made VHS the success it was.

As for my plans, I intend to wait. Heck I am still HDTV shopping right now. I suspect I will buy a HDTV in late winter or early spring (after football season). As for the topic at hand, well what with all the DRM crap on top of the technology war I just cannot see a reason why I would want to pay through the nose to be stuck in the ass. I think my DVD will suffice for a while, though I can see a DVR system on the horizon as well. I am not even sure if I will upgrade my SAT service to HD very soon. I will have to check the HD and DVR combo packages available when my contract with DirectTV runs out next summer.

Wabi-Sabi
Matthew

Re:What is the porn industry backing?

[Mephistopholies]

I had heard that about VHS being preferred over Beta in the porn industry but also the early adoption of DVD as it was a cheaper, quicker way to get product to market. I had also heard the actresses do not like either of the formats as it allows the viewing of more blemishes
etc. That were not viewable in the lower resolution. It is amusing to think of the porn industry being the driving force behind adoption.

Re:What is the porn industry backing?

[wilec]

I heard that Sony had issues with adult content and refused to license the Betamax media to adult studios at one time. I don't know if this is true or even if it is the main reason for the eventual consumer choice. VHS media and devices were considerably cheaper and had a higher capacity than Betamax so these issues may have been enough to make the decision. I am old enough to have been around both at the time and from what I remember Betamax was smaller and the picture had a little better quality, especially on tracking issues. The problem was you could not find much content and it was expensive when you did. I remember hearing of individuals that were media shifting content, for a fee of course, from VHS to Betamax in their basements, I never bought any of it though.

I just Googled the topic and it seems like it is going to be "deja vue all over again". There are accusations about that Sony is discreetly pressuring the pressing houses not to do adult titles in BlueRay. I don't think such would have the impact that it did before what with the internet and all. Still the bandwith for distributed HD content is just not available to most people. Another issue that has weight is in the Microsoft choice of HDDVD for the XBox. They don't always pick the winner themselves but they do have a lot of influence.

I had heard the main stream actors were not wild about HD content for the same reasons, it is just too damn revealing. I guess these could still be cleaned up in the editing room, but the costs to do so in a effective manner will most likely be huge.

Wabi-Sabi
Matthew

Cheap(ish) dual is already here.

[Cordath]

LG GGC-H20L: PC drive that Plays both Bluray and HD-DVD discs, burns DVD's. Costs about $250

The catch? You need a decent PC to stick it in. (i.e. Either a very beefy CPU or a recent video card with hardware acceleration for HD codecs.)

The other catch? PC software support is still on the ragged bleeding edge. Linux currently can handle *some* high def codecs, but not all. In Windows, PowerDVD remains the only bit of software that can handle pretty much everything. (Other players can be made to work, with hacks, but they almost always run into problems)

The big reason why PC playback currently sucks is DRM. AACS and HDCP to be precise. My projector is supposed to be HDCP compliant, but it isn't, and it's barely two years old! When I first tried to play a disc I got about 5 seconds of glorious high-def over HDMI and then a popup saying, "Your display isn't HDCP compliant bitch! No more high-def for you unless you rip out your swank HDMI cables and go back to analogue like a caveman! How are them apples you thieving pirate!" I had to install software which removes AACS and HDCP enforcement with it before I could use my HDCP "compliant" projector. (Said software can be found with minimal googling.)

So, let's sum up the fancy pants DRM on HD-DVD and Bluray. While it lasted, it prevented people from playing HD-DVD's and Bluray discs on hardware both of these formats were supposed to run on, and now it's broken wide open less than 18 months after the formats first rolled out. What a monumental waste. All they've done is shoot themselves in the foot by making the new formats hard to use.

All that being said, HD-DVD and Bluray are freakin' sweet once you get them working. I was previously running a quadcore to provide me with enough power to massage the heck out of DVD's with ffdshow. A good high-def disc blows that away without any processing applied at all, and on a 720P display! Seriously, find a friend with a high-def display and make them play the new version of Blade Runner on it. You'll be sold on high-def unless you hate blade runner, in which case you should probably stick to Jane Austen novels anyways.

What I would like to see from Sony and Microsoft are some friggin' HD-DVD and Bluray API's released so Linux players and kick-ass Windows players like Zoom Player can properly support these formats. If this was done for just one of these formats, that would be enough for me to start buying that format over the other whenever possible. Seriously boys, if you want to win this format war, you need to just give up on the DRM and start making your stuff as easy to use as possible.

Luddites

[balthan]

Why do HD topics always bring out the people who feel the need to justify their own decision to stick with SD (and sound eerily similar to the no TV camp)? If you don't want to swtich, that's fine, but stop telling those of us who can afford to switch, who do see a significant difference, and who actually enjoy the increased quality, that we're all idiots.

I can only tell the difference ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I can only tell the difference when looking at one of those huge hi-def LCD or plasma displays w/ one of those special HD-DVD demo disks in. Nature looks almost... natural.

Sure. Kids.

[Hyperhaplo]

Ever seen what happens to the lovely DVDs when kiddies play them hundreds of times, put them in / out of the player at the rate of at least once per DVD per day?
Right.

Back up the disk, create a copy, use the copy until it dies; alternatively rip it to your drive and access it remotely to play to the TV.

No, not everyone is doing it right now.. but they will be soon. Waiting for the technology to catch up and make it easier.

Re:Sure. Kids.

[stewbacca]

By the time the common man possesses the skill to back up a dvd, spinning metal disks will be obsolete ;-p

Re:Sure. Kids.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your comment is very relevant and insightful.. and leads us to: necessity is the mother of invention.
I've now been asked more than 10 times to show (and in most cases write down step by step instructions :) ) exactly how to do this by frustrated parents.
They may not know how in the beginning, but after buying The Little Mermaid for the 5th time they really really want to learn how to do it. One spindle of 40 blank DVDs is around $20. One single DVD is anywhere from $20 to $40. Easy mathematics for parents.

Re:Sure. Kids.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to be a pain and reply to my own comment here.

I'd like to stress here that all of the parents in question have purchased the DVDs and (from all cases I've seen) they were from local shops. Some of them know about downloading from the net but don't have the time/technical inclination to download something, convert it and burn it. Easier just to buy it (for them anyway) and they don't have to worry about anything.

Although, there is a culture which appears when parents start doing this. The children treat 'original' disks with great respect - in most cases they won't touch them. Oh, they will run around the house and even throw around the copies.. but never the originals. After a while it gets to the point where they demand for the backup to be made ASAP because they know they won't get to see it until the original is locked away. I was at a friends place and the father forget (mummy usually does the backups as she isn't at work) and he put the disk directly into the DVD. The two kids ran around telling him off for using the original :)

Wouldn't work down under

[tepples]

HD movies using h.264 can already be downloaded, they're around 7GB. How many months would it take to build up a 7,000 MB quota on a home broadband connection in New Zealand or Australia?

Re:Is it better to upconvert on the DVD player or

[ShadowsHawk]

I agree with the other poster, but you will want to use at least component cables. You can find just about any cable for a very reasonable price if you search around the web. I found a HDMI and optical audio bundle for a couple of bucks on amazon.

Negative urgency to upgrade ?? C'est possible?

[RockDoctor]

further reducing the urgency to upgrade to one of the new formats.

Since I've not yet seen any reason to "upgrade", if indeed the various forms of HD are an upgrade, then clearly this implies that HD-BlueDVD or whatever they are called is currently running at a less-than-zero urgency to upgrade for me. (Mind you, I've only had a TV in the house for 3 of the 13 years that I've owned it. TV is also at less than zero for me. Sorry, it's 2008 now, so make that 3 of the 14 full years.)

Most hypocritical post ever...

[stewbacca]

You, sir, are a hypocrite. To wit:

First, are you seriously positing that there aren't any consumers who are avoiding HD because of DRM? ...And if you think there aren't millions of consumers who are impacted by DRM (and the difficulty of ripping/copying HD) even if they don't know it by that name, then you are very much mistaken. So there we have it, DRM is one of the many valid reasons to avoid buying an HD player.

followed nicely by:

How can you seriously believe that DRM is the reason people are not buying HD?! This is not about DRM!

For the record, YOU entered both of these seemingly contradictory statements into slashdot lore. I, on the other hand, have only summarized what others have said (that DRM is a small factor) even though I'm personally not convinced (as evident by my previous posts). So again I have to ask, who is the one not following the thread? You don't even remember what you said in your OWN post, let alone understand that I'm the one who actually believes that DRM is pretty much a non-factor.

But to lift this conversation above your sophomoric challenges, I return to the debate at hand.

So we've boiled it down to your argument being that people SHOULD sit out the format war because they ARE sitting out the format war.

I haven't said people should do ANYTHING. What we have boiled it down to is that you have no idea what my argument is, and you don't read what I post. You refuse to accept my premise (let alone even successfully acknowledge what it is), yet you don't rebut it in any meaningful way. Am I being trolled? Am I communicating with an 8-year old? Are you, I don't know, I lousy college student practicing for debate club?

I'll try again. People ARE sitting out the format war for their own reasons, usually monetary. Here's a hint, the phrase "format war" has a lot to do with it. That's it. Stop inferring. You don't want them to sit out, it's dumb to sit out, it's easy just to buy one format now and the other later, the media is overhyping this blah, blah, blah, but the fact remains that people ARE sitting it out because of competing formats (fairly or unfairly).

Now before you respond, STOP. If you don't address specific instances with which you disagree (try the blockquote tags) and if you don't post an intelligent response associated with the blockquote, just don't bother, because you'll just be wasting everyone's time. I don't think anyone but the most sadistic people are still even following this thread.

Re:Most hypocritical post ever...

[ColdSam]

For the record, YOU entered both of these seemingly contradictory statements into slashdot lore. I, on the other hand, have only summarized what others have said (that DRM is a small factor) even though I'm personally not convinced (as evident by my previous posts). So again I have to ask, who is the one not following the thread? You don't even remember what you said in your OWN post, let alone understand that I'm the one who actually believes that DRM is pretty much a non-factor. It's not surprising you didn't clue in to my ironic statement. Cluing in is not your strong suit.

When I say "DRM is a reason why some people might wait." You freak out about me being an anti-DRM nut. Then you say "DRM is a reason why some people might wait" and I give you the same (irrational) treatment.

Go back to my first post. I said that one of the many reasons some people might choose to not go HD is because they couldn't rip the discs. Do you want to take another crack at refuting that statement since you failed so miserably the previous two times?

I haven't said people should do ANYTHING. I have no idea why I'm wasting my time with someone so stubborn and dense.

Let me recap, one final time. Seumas said "People shouldn't wait and here's why." You said "No, no, no and here's some ignorant reasons why."

Need I tell you that the opposite of "should not" is "should". If you are disagreeing with Seumas (and me) then you are saying that people should wait. If you believe that people who want HD should not wait, then you are violently agreeing with us.

Neither of us ever said that people weren't buying because of the format war, but you keep on insisting that they are. And no doubt you will insist it again in your reply to this post.

Neither of us ever said that HD was not a significant investment (and it certainly is to some more than others.)

What we have said (oh, so many times) is that for those who want HD that sitting on the sidelines until the war is over does not make sense, practically or even financially.

You've provided nothing but nonsense to rebut that. Jeez, how many times have you claimed that the second HD player will cost $400! Or that users will be forced, yes forced to rebuy their media because they won't be able to play their obsolete discs?

One more attempt at a lesson in simple boolean logic (at no charge to you):

Not "should not" == "should"
Not "some people" == "no people"