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

[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

[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

[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)...

DVD/HD

[Kenoli]

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

Sounds familiar. Anyone?

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?

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.

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

[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: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: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).

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.

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.

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.

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: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.

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)

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.

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

[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

[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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.