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.

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: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.

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.

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: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:How about "Phoning Home" and DRM?

[corsec67]

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