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

[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

[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

[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

[ashridah]

But will the HDTV blend? [cue music]

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)...

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?

[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?

[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?

[ScrewMaster]

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

Okay, fine. You tell that to Scott Bakula.

DVD/HD

[Kenoli]

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

Sounds familiar. Anyone?

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...

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.

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.

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

[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

[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

[SuperQ]

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

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: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).

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".

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.

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.

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

[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

[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

[neomunk]

To compensate for small penises?

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.

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.

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.

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???

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: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: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.

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.

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.)

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.

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

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: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: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.

[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:How about "Phoning Home" and DRM?

[corsec67]

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

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!

Re:Who cares? They're cheap.

[Chainsaw]

I would call English the big loser here...

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.

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.

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: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.

The choice format for Antigua

[Amphetam1ne]

H.264 in the MKV container. Primary choice of HD pirates everywhere.

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/

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.

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.