W0W!1! SCIENC3!1! Blu-Ray FTW!

[monorail77]

Great article. Thanks. I completely agree that HDDVD/Blu-Ray are going nowhere fast.

[Chairman Kaga]

Interesting read an I tend to agree based solely on the fact that VHS->DVD did not require an entire television upgrade.

[stereosforgeeks]

I believe that the lack of education among consumers about hdtvs, hd-dvd and blu-ray are the real reason the technology is off to a lackluster start.

Most consumers do not know the difference between 480i/p, 1080i/p etc... Now add this to the list of tv types currently available (SXRD, DLP, direct view lcd and plasma) and you have one hell of a mess of techno babble. Lastly, most consumers don't even know how to correctly purchase a new tv set because they don't know what they are really lookign at. Uniformity, gamma ramps, contrast ratios, these mean nothing to the average consumer and they do not know how to choose the best tv for their price range. Hell most hdtvs look like crap because of costdown after costdown to get the sets to prices most consumers will even consider buying.

Now that was just the TV side of things and we haven't even started discussing HD-DVD and BLU-RAY, upconverting dvd players, etc...

We are in for one hell of a ride with hdtv and subsequent technologies and call me a pessimist but I don't see the average consumer even coming close to making the type of decisions required in the new hidef age.

[mushookie]

I agree with the article all the way!

It is VERY true that people would kill billions of living things just be ahead, or go faster!

[The Thin Man]

I have been reading that some companies are starting to push duel players, i.e. will play both formats. This already smells of desperation from an industry that realises it may have already shot itself in the foot. I personaly agree that these technologies will be nothing more than the modern equivalent of laser disks and that a new technology will arise to superseed them both soon. Mind you, I also bought a betamax video so my track record record on predicting these things is not great. I will also say that what helped push DVD was the very fact it was pirateable (sic). I know a lot of people who only started buying DVD players so they could play the copies (backups?) that were being passed around down the pub by their mates. Most eventually went on to build up large, legal collections once they became hooked.

[silentbobafett]

I have been very anti home HD tech. Simply because I think it is a con on the great consumer public. Someone stated above that the public won't buy it. YES THEY WILL! That is the bproblem! I know loads of people at work and else where that have got HD tvs or are saving for them - WHO AREn'T EVEN INTO FILM!

But they're buying it because they have been told its the thing to do. Now I'm not saying it isn't - but what about the guy who just brought a £1,000 Plasma but it weasn't HD?

If HD does take off, and its prob worth a HD tv because of forthcoming TV tech and games, I feel sorry for people buying TV's as we speak! Go itno a tv shop - loads of flat screens. 50/50 of them being HD, at most.

Its fair to say that DVD's really took off at the millenium and built up steam of the following few years. I remember a report coming out in the early 2000's saying that DVD was the fastest selling NEW technology in history. Now DVD has been out since (i thik) 98? maybe 97. BUt it was ready for mass consumption until 2000's.

Now thats 6 years of use. People like my self who have spent thousands on DVD collections.... made it their hobby. Gave the big studly cats out money. Took it on as our passion, the way to express our love for film. We embraced this new technology and all it oculd do.

WHAT DO WE DO? WHAT DO THE PUBLIC DO?

I know more people with big DVD colelctions than ever had big video collections.

Are we/they to get rid of them and buy HD? I will not buy HD or Blu-Ray anytime soon (for many reasons) but the MAIN REASON is that I don't trust them. I'll spend all my money over a couple of years building up this bueaitufl collection to be told its worthelss and somethign esle is out.

Now I'm up for new technology and undestand that things must evolve. ANd as technolgy gets better, things happen quicker. But the industry must choose when to release things..

THERE WILL BE SOMETHING BETTER THAN HD down the line. So why not wait a few more years and release that? BEacuse HD looks and feels the same as DVD in phsyical form. Yeah is technology on screen might be better. But that can suck to. I never got a Plasma cos it made everyhting look like digital beauty. Well fuck you Sony but Nil By Mouth is meant to look dirty not like an episode of fucking Hollyoaks.

So part of me thinks the public will be suckered into this new technology and the corporations will feel evenmore empowered. After all who can ingore the press on this. Its much mroe than Laserdisc ever had.

The other part of me thinks that the public could say FUCK YOU and not buy into it. I hope the latter happens. I want a new format - I want better quality etc - but not yet. NOt for a while.

Why still release amazing DVD's if your gonna tell me that their shit and HD is the only way to see a movie? I'm what the fuck!

I hate that! Its like - "YOU'VE NEVER SEEN A MOVIE UNTIl YOU'VE SEENIT IN HD!" Also availabe in DVD.

Or,a s with most films at the mo: SPEDN £20 ($) on the DVD..... hey guess what in four months you can buyt he "real thing" cos DVD is shit!

AND THE MOST IMPORTANT THING: THe whole shamble sis a con on the great public beacuase they DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT MOVIE QUALITY!!!

Apart from film fans, whot he fuck cared about widescren before? I worked in a DVD sotre, people would still bring back DVD's and say they were broken cos of the black bars. Do you think they care about 1080p? Do they give a shit that its smoother, more cyrstal clear, quality than DVD?

NO, but they may think they do cos they wanna be "cool". They wanan have the latest. Well HD is pitched at them as that. And my god they're gonna fall for it!

I#'m not saying I won't. I'm a muggins when it comes to stuff like that. But I won't give up without a fight.

I still have a lot of VHS - I don't watch them - but I can't bin them all.

And I'm not ready to admit that I got had by the corporate scum and waisted thousands on thousands of DVD's....

But what do you think? Am I wrong? Will we loose?

P.S SOrry about typos but there is no way I'm checking through this muthafucking long diatribe. Plus I'm at work!

"I'M MAD AND I WON'T TAKE IT ANYMORE!"

[tapehead]

DVD has been out since 98? maybe 97? if you're going to make contentious assertions, why not at least google it?
arent there already 397 threads on HD and Blu-ray?

[magicmonkey]

Good points there Silentbob, but as far as I'm concerned if I can buy a big tv and HD player and the image actually looks good rather than the piss poor quality of most large screens then I'm happy and glad I waited to buy technology that actually is good.

As for DVD's, they'll still be around, HD just makes piracy that little bit longer and time consuming, kinda like an epic voyage on the seven seas, far away from home and family with a serious case of flaky scalp that even Vosene can't shift.

[silentbobafett]

Tapehead - in a weird way you kinda proving my point:

The layman, yah average man - don't care what year they came out - they were buying into them in the 2000's. I stopped working in the DVD store in 2005 (and yes, tapehead, I checked that date) and people were coming in saying: "I've just brought my first DVD player!"

Now this maybe because they couldn't afford one before, or because they didn't care or because they didn't trust the market. BUt DVD proved itself.

And I think, like my man above said, being able to pirate them had somehting to do with it! The consumer is amost the the corporate monkey boys they want us to be, but not quite. They can't shake this thing we have about liking bootleggs. People have always liked getting hold of alternate copies of songs, or bootlegs of certain things. Its now been dumped with a hefty title and a bullshit worldwide ad campaign.

Fact is if someones is stupid enought o wanna sit thorugh a pirate of LOTR, filmed in the cinema with people talking, standing, eating on the screen in front of them - then do these people really care about 1080p/i and the tech war? Nope...

So out of all my poorly typed points you only picked up on the fact that I wasn't sure of the year? Well its 97 my man and how about making a point about THE MAN and not the guy questioning their actions?

"I'm MAD AND I WON'T TAKE IT ANYMORE"

[silentbobafett]

Oops forget the pirary point I was trying to make:

Being able to pirate a format means more people buy it cos they can copy filsm for their mates, back up and some people might even go into large criminal operations (still spending the money on Sony etc equipment (isn't it ironic!)) So if HD is hard to copy then it won't take off. THink about it.... DVD became big when with a couple of hundred bucks you could buy a DVD burner. NOw their £30 everyone backs em up. DVD still earns a shit load.

So the industry won't admit it but PIRACY to a certain degree , HELPS FORMATS SELL! Take a looka t MP3 and Ipods my friends.... take a look....

[havocSchultz]

arent there already 397 threads on HD and Blu-ray?

Actually - I think this makes 5 (five)

[TheBaxter]

i don't understand why people get so upset over this. if you don't want an HD player, don't buy one. it's that simple. DVDs will still be around, at least for a while.

the piracy issue is a whole other bag of snakes. sure, the piracy industry generates a lot of revenue. the problem for the studios is, THEY DON'T SEE ANY OF IT. that's why they're pushing so hard for an HD format. it's not out of benevolent concern for the public, bringing better image quality to the lowly masses. it's because they think (even though they're wrong) that a new format will eliminate piracy, and all those people buying or downloading pirated movies, from which they don't see a single cent, will turn around and buy the HD versions instead. this won't work because a) many people who get pirated movies now will still be able to get them in non-HD, and won't care that they're inferior quality, and b) the piracy industry will figure out how to crack whatever new security measures the new formats use. there's too much money at stake for them not to. but the studios who are driving the push for HD don't care about the piracy market other than wanting to stamp it out... none of their money comes from there, so why should they?

the side benefit of this for those of us who DO care about image quality is that we'll get movies in HD a lot sooner than we would otherwise. and by the looks of things, they're already relatively cheap. they're cheaper than the first DVDs were when they came out. they're WAY cheaper than VHS, BetaMax and LaserDisk were. remember $100 VHS movies? the reason DVD has turned into a collector market that VHS never did is because the prices came down so low, when you can buy a DVD for $10-15 it's hard to resist. I bet HD-DVD and BluRay will hit those prices even sooner than DVD did. already the HD versions of movies cost barely more than the DVD versions, and the first HD-DVD player on the market was $500. does anyone remember how much the first DVD player was? i don't, and i'm too lazy to google it, but i'm sure it was more than $500. there's no reason to think these won't be down to DVD player prices in a couple years. and once they are, they'll take off just like DVD players did, because they can still play DVDs too, and because the manufacturers are really pushing these things hard and will probably phase out DVD-only players once the prices on HD players get low enough.

most people today don't care that much about image quality, but they will start to care more as more and more large HDTVs are bought, as prices on TVs continue to slide, and as the HD formats get established. last year my parents upgraded from a 36" standard TV to a 55" HDTV. before, they had analog cable, and their picture always looked like crap. i'm not just talking about poor image quality, i'm talking about lines in the picture, ghosting, all that crap you see in a poor analog signal. and they didn't care. but when they got an HDTV, they started to care. the picture looked even crappier blown up to 55". they wondered why the picture didn't look as good as DVDs or as good as the demo at Best Buy. they got digital cable with the HD package. and my parents aren't technical at all, i've pretty much had to hook up and set up all their TV equipment. and now they ask me if their picture looks as good as my 60" 1080p TV (it doesn't). so they care a lot more than they used to. that's just one example, but i think a lot of people will have that experience: once they see how good HD looks, they'll care about PQ a lot more. when i got my first DVD player, i didn't care that much about PQ either, i just liked the fact that most of the movies were letterboxed instead of having the sides chopped off. it wasn't long til i couldn't stand to watch a VHS movie, because i got used to the better quality of DVD. i think the same will happen with HD, but it will be slower because the improvement is not as great.

anyway, it's way too soon to tell if HD-DVD/BluRay will be a transitional format or here to stay. there may be another format that comes along which can hold 200GB or something. but will studios and electronics companies have the balls to try another format switch, especially one that, unlike HD-DVD/BluRay, ISN'T backward-compatible with all the disks people have already bought? probably not anytime soon. HD-DVD/BluRay will probably be around 10-15 years, before it's replaced with either a non-physical media or some kind of supercrystal-based format that stores movies on something the size of a flash card.

[King Psyz]

I still think the PS3 will impact this alot, and yes before anyone starts bitching about the pricetag on that machine. Any of you remember the initial costs of the Atari 2600, NES, Genesis, Super Nintendo, TurboGrafx 16, PS1, ect...?

While they didn't hit $600, if you look at inflation and pricing realative to quality and also other tech during the time this price is right in line.

As previously said, DVD players and even VCRs were waaaaay over priced. But at the same time this is based on the luxury of retrospect. At the time we thought it was a deal to pay $100 to be able to watch a movie...AT HOME!...AS MANY TIMES AS YOU WANT!

We take it all for granted now, but home entertainment has expanded at an alarming rate for the last 20-30 years and it's growing exponentially. Granted it seems like double dipping at the moment, but it's just that tech is moving faster than the market.

At this rate movie theatres will change into something else, because home quality will be just as good if not better unless they start upgrading to digital HD projectors and changing the experience to make it more apealing.

[monorail77]

DVDs will still be around, at least for a while.

Yes, but for how long?

My biggest fear with this new, shinier better HDDVD fad is that consumers will be forced to switch. Studios won't put out DVD's anymore, manufacturers won't make players. It'll take a fair while, but it could happen. That's essentially what has happened to VHS (and records and 8-tracks, for that matter).

[magicmonkey]

DVDs will still be around, at least for a while.

Yes, but for how long?

My biggest fear with this new, shinier better HDDVD fad is that consumers will be forced to switch. Studios won't put out DVD's anymore, manufacturers won't make players. It'll take a fair while, but it could happen. That's essentially what has happened to VHS (and records and 8-tracks, for that matter).

But dude, its all digital. Its just data, who cares what its stored on. The progress of technology and falling prices ain't gonna matter a jot. Soon the whole disc format will disappear. What with flash discs and even Mp3 players having gargantuan storage nowadays, the world is a crazy tech place. A companies entire database can be loaded onto a mp3 pebble. Studios just need to find newer forms of revenue, licensing and what not to truly survive. Plus, theatres need to bring their F*cking prices down.

[TheBaxter]

DVDs will still be around, at least for a while.

Yes, but for how long?

My biggest fear with this new, shinier better HDDVD fad is that consumers will be forced to switch. Studios won't put out DVD's anymore, manufacturers won't make players. It'll take a fair while, but it could happen. That's essentially what has happened to VHS (and records and 8-tracks, for that matter).

it will happen, but by then the HD disks will cost the same as DVDs do now, the HD players will cost the same as DVD players do now, and all your old DVDs will still play on them. all you're getting is better quality for the same price. some people will want that better quality now and will pay through the nose for it. most everyone else will wait til it's cheap, just like they did with DVD. VHS tapes didn't go away til DVD players and disks dropped to a low enough price that it didn't make sense for anyone NOT to have one.

[monorail77]

Plus, theatres need to bring their F*cking prices down.

Agreed!!

Actually there's a nice ad campaign for theatres running right now. The "Go Big" campaign. In one effective ad they show you a big screen TV and say "this screen is 50 inches" then they pan out to show you its sitting in front of a movie screen and they say "but this movie screen is 50 feet! Go Big!" (Works for me.)

[TheBaxter]

Plus, theatres need to bring their F*cking prices down.

Agreed!!

Actually there's a nice ad campaign for theatres running right now. The "Go Big" campaign. In one effective ad they show you a big screen TV and say "this screen is 50 inches" then they pan out to show you its sitting in front of a movie screen and they say "but this movie screen is 50 feet! Go Big!" (Works for me.)

i wish they'd take the money they spend on those ads and spend it on hiring some ushers instead, to shut up all the crying babies and people talking on their cellphones during the movies. THAT'S what keeps me out of theatres these days, not ticket prices or DVDs.

[Chairman Kaga]

I still think the PS3 will impact this alot, and yes before anyone starts bitching about the pricetag on that machine. Any of you remember the initial costs of the Atari 2600, NES, Genesis, Super Nintendo, TurboGrafx 16, PS1, ect...?

While they didn't hit $600, if you look at inflation and pricing realative to quality and also other tech during the time this price is right in line.

Hardly, it's still well above the mean price in US adjusted 2006 dollars. There are only 5 systems that were more expensive on release and all but one of them (Atari 2600) tanked. (Click Here for Larger Graph) Even the systems closest in price to the PS3 bombed (Fairchild, Saturn and the CD-I).

[Chairman Kaga]

i wish they'd take the money they spend on those ads and spend it on hiring some ushers instead, to shut up all the crying babies and people talking on their cellphones during the movies. THAT'S what keeps me out of theatres these days, not ticket prices or DVDs.

Where do people like you go to the movies? I never have these problems of crying babies and cellphones etc.

[TheBaxter]

i wish they'd take the money they spend on those ads and spend it on hiring some ushers instead, to shut up all the crying babies and people talking on their cellphones during the movies. THAT'S what keeps me out of theatres these days, not ticket prices or DVDs.

Where do people like you go to the movies? I never have these problems of crying babies and cellphones etc.

then you are one incredibly lucky person

[King Psyz]

I still think the PS3 will impact this alot, and yes before anyone starts bitching about the pricetag on that machine. Any of you remember the initial costs of the Atari 2600, NES, Genesis, Super Nintendo, TurboGrafx 16, PS1, ect...?

While they didn't hit $600, if you look at inflation and pricing realative to quality and also other tech during the time this price is right in line.

Hardly, it's still well above the mean price in US adjusted 2006 dollars. There are only 5 systems that were more expensive on release and all but one of them (Atari 2600) tanked. (Click Here for Larger Graph) Even the systems closest in price to the PS3 bombed (Fairchild, Saturn and the CD-I).

you missed part of my point, but again some people are destined to hate on sony. all you need to do is look at the 2600 vs playstation 3. The Atari was crude by any standards and realatively cost MORE than PS3 will at launch.

But again keep in mind, it's not just going to be family's game system, but home entertainment center as well. So they're getting a PS1, PS2, PS3, DVD, Internet Portal, Photo Viewer, CD Player, and Blu-Ray for that price.

[Chairman Kaga]

You are way off base. The Atari 2600 was not crude by any standards when it was released.

The PS3 like the PS2 and PS1 before it is not going to be the family home entertainment center. I know of no one who has ever setup their Xbox or Playstation in the main fmily room as a replacement for their DVD player or stereo etc. They always end up in a kid's room. You are deluding yourself if you believe otherwise.

I am not hating on Sony I am presenting the facts. The fact is their system costs more than 19 major systems before it. Only 10 of which ended up as profitable for their respective companies vs the 7 systems it's equal to or less than in price and only 1 of those turned a profit. I wonder which odds are better nearly 50/50 versus 1 in 7?

[King Psyz]

I know several people who use a Playstation 2 for their main DVD/CD player, so just because you don't know anyone personally doesn't make it fact.

And yes the Atari was crude, I had one, I was around in the 70's and it looked crap compared to what was coming out in the arcades. Yet the PS3 is set to look just as good if not better than many current arcade games.

I know I'll use my PS3 for my home entertainment console, and why not? If it plays CD, DVD, Blu Ray, PS 1,2, and 3, and I can throw in a memory card to view virals and photos, why not?

ex:
vs

[Chairman Kaga]

That is a vast minority of the marketplace. For comparisson the CD-i played Video discs, acted as an interactive computer, played music CDs etc as an all in one Home Entertainment Unit and it never took off.
[quote]We have consistently heard it said that the Playstation3 will “jump startâ€

[raasnio]

i wish they'd take the money they spend on those ads and spend it on hiring some ushers instead, to shut up all the crying babies and people talking on their cellphones during the movies. THAT'S what keeps me out of theatres these days, not ticket prices or DVDs.

Where do people like you go to the movies? I never have these problems of crying babies and cellphones etc.

Exactly. Maybe it's the time of day and not the theater itself. I mostly go to evening shows and don't experience all that noise.

As for the Hi-Def formats, it does come down to new TVs, new formats and the view of many that it just isn't worth the upgrade. My HDTV doesn't have an HDMI hookup so until I upgrade it I'll be sticking with DVD.

[The Thin Man]

I should make one more point about why DVD eventually replaced tapes (or at least in my opinion). The retailers prefered them. They were smaller than tapes so cheaper to store and took up less shelf space (also they needed less environment control since they were less suseptable to heat/light/moisture than tape). They were also cheaper to produce so had a higher mark-up. My parents, for instance, only switched to DVD when they could no longer get a VHS copy of the film they wanted in the stores. They also found a £30 player in the local supermarket (their tape player had cost £200). The new formats don't have these advantages over DVD for the retailer so it will be interesting to see if they are as quick to empty DVD space make way for HD.

[papalazeru]

I for one wont be buying one just yet and possibly for the next 5 years wont. Unless I buy an Xbox 360 or something.

Europe was never meant to have HD, we were set to go our seperate ways and work on the development of DVB and DVA. We chose that because HD was a limited market and uses a HELL of alot of bandwidth.

Along came SKY and said, 'We are going to push for this because we can', and Lo and Behold.....Shazaaaam! It arrives in Europe.

There is no serious point to HD at the moment. Nothing is supporting and not all television will in the future.

In the wya of Camera technology, most companies are so cheap they use a sorta Faux HD which just doubles up the resolution....so we are unlikely to see and REAL HD programs for a while, unless they are a Sky import.

One last point, I thought the idea of us moving from Analogue signal to Digital was so that more channels could be aired? With HD television the bandwidth is 18Mhz which is well....about 3 times the size.

If all lines took up this much room with HD, Cable suppliers wouldnt be able to run all those channels...far too expensive and alot fewer channels......and SKY lining its pockets even more.

Im sorry Ladies and Gentlemen, the only winner here is SKY and not the viewer. You will have to pay for HD shows which you could really watch on SD, and then there is 'pay per view and pay for HD' services.

I'll go HD when the Beeb starts doing all its programming in HD.

By the way, this isnt because Im a technophobe. Its because I can see the way that this new device is going to suck the money and the living daylights, right from our own pockets.

Now I know why thelicense fee is worth it.

[tapehead]

I for one wont be buying one just yet and possibly for the next 5 years wont. Unless I buy an Xbox 360 or something.

Europe was never meant to have HD, we were set to go our seperate ways and work on the development of DVB and DVA. We chose that because HD was a limited market and uses a HELL of alot of bandwidth.

Along came SKY and said, 'We are going to push for this because we can', and Lo and Behold.....Shazaaaam! It arrives in Europe.

There is no serious point to HD at the moment. Nothing is supporting and not all television will in the future.

In the wya of Camera technology, most companies are so cheap they use a sorta Faux HD which just doubles up the resolution....so we are unlikely to see and REAL HD programs for a while, unless they are a Sky import.

One last point, I thought the idea of us moving from Analogue signal to Digital was so that more channels could be aired? With HD television the bandwidth is 18Mhz which is well....about 3 times the size.

If all lines took up this much room with HD, Cable suppliers wouldnt be able to run all those channels...far too expensive and alot fewer channels......and SKY lining its pockets even more.

Im sorry Ladies and Gentlemen, the only winner here is SKY and not the viewer. You will have to pay for HD shows which you could really watch on SD, and then there is 'pay per view and pay for HD' services.

I'll go HD when the Beeb starts doing all its programming in HD.

By the way, this isnt because Im a technophobe. Its because I can see the way that this new device is going to suck the money and the living daylights, right from our own pockets.

Now I know why thelicense fee is worth it.

come on Papa, lets hunt down Rupert Murdoch and hurt him real bad - I want to - You obviously want to - It would bring prositive effects to the lives of every Zoner - let's do it!

There is quite a bit of production in HD, Beeb included, right?

[papalazeru]

(* Slips in CD - Weber: Ring cycle. Switches to a late track and puts on pause)

Yeah. Beeb is doing HD but when I mean switch, I mean a prevailent switch, i.e normal terrestrial tele dies and Beeb starts putting HD content out on British teleivision.

THEN and only THEN, will I buy. Or when I get a PS3 or XBOX.

Right anyway, now back to the Murdoch thingy

(* Presses play on CD....Ride of the Valkyries*)
Lets get that SONOFABITCH!

[tapehead]

- Sky and Murdoch have done Exactly the same thing in Australia: It's personal, I want him to feel it.

[Doc Holliday]

My theory is this: DVD replaced VHS because it represented a genuine sea-change in technology.

you got your better sound, your better picture etc, sure. BUT you also got DVD Extras - which the consumer loves. And I mean LOVES. The IT crew get their kicks from Easter Eggs. Fanboys and Fangirls love the interviews. Film Geeks groove on stuff like the commentaries. They give the chance to the makers and studios to put bad films right with added scenes. Already good films become great films - everyone bangs on about the LOTR EE for example - and I'm one of them - But no way would that length of film have worked on the masses if they'd been the theatrical release.

There are many other benefits too - no matter who you were, films just got bigger when DVD was released. People saw the point. Word got around.

I got my first DVD player in 1999 - I didn't get my first DVD player that actually fucking worked properly until 2001 - it was a flawed technology on release for most people - the sound sync would go on a lot of films, some just weren't compaitble with certain brands, most would get all "skippy" within six months of purchase.

But people endured.

Now, I'm the first to admit I'm a layman when it comes to this HD malarkey, let alone Blu-Ray (did the latter ever get to fuck that Marina chick BTW?). But it seems reading this thread that whilst it offers some improvement in overall viewing/audio quality, other than that to the average man on the street it just offers the same old tricks on a different format. I'm not saying that IS the case - but that is most people's perception - and therefore becomes the reality.

People have only recently bought their DVD player. They've spent a shedload of money on a DVD collection. They've only just finished upgrading their TV to widescreen - and plasma in some cases. They have surround sound. All these things have come to pass in the last 5 to 10 years in terms of when the average person actually was able to buy them.

And they all work. And they are all great.

Why on earth would we voluntarily declare it obsolete, just because SKY et al tell us it is so? Rubbish - and Fie to you Murdoch. Why the fuck would I pay extra for an extra channel, when the normal channel plays just fine on the system I have? My pocket is not a bottomless pit.

Invent the holographic projector already - or GET OFF OF MY CLOUD!

[papalazeru]

You are not far from the truth there my friend.

They actually invented a holographic sphere which recorded data.

It could store bottomless pits of Data but the unfortunate side effect was that it was unreliable. The whole light bouncing thing didnt work properly.

But you are only the right lines.

If they could Muliplex the data cross referencing itself along the way, think of the compressioni it could bring.

Think of the power needed though, to re-write data to a holographic image?

At a hypothetical guess you could get a 700MB film down to around a quarter of the size but the processing technology is far past us at the moment.

Maybe as a backup server or something.

[Tyrone_Shoelaces]

I mentioned holographic storage here. A holographic projector is a ways off I'm sure.

[walter-konkrete]

The main problem with DVD/VHS anologies is that most people don't consider that VHS tapes prices were kept ARTIFICIALLY high to support the rental biz. Mega-hit movies were guranteed a VHS release at an affordable price ($15 to $30) but many titles, especially in the early days, could only be purchased for $100 and up by through rental distributors(this is why losing a rented tape would rack up such a high fee)...back catalog titles...classics, cult movies, etc. were even harder to find at the consumer price point. This is why you only had one half of one aisle worth of movies at the local dept store. 2/3 of which would usually be children's movies. The VHS market was tightly controlled to keep the rental guys in business.


When DVD was created, a conscious decision was made throughout the industry to make the software available at a consumer price point across the board...this meant therw as no artificial barrier between a renta release and a more mass-market release(much to thechagrin of the powers at Blockbuster, etc.) Almost instantly, there were several times as many movies of all kinds on DVD than VHS. On top of that, every new release came out on DVD at a low price point ($20-25), even if the VHS conterpart was priced for renatl only ($100).

DVD's appeal to consumers like me in those early days, was not image quality, bit the vast variety of titles available (as well as widescreen formats). Favorite films that could not be bought retail, were suddenly available for $20, new releases could be purchased for home viewing much quicker, without a retail pricing delay to benefit rental stores.

the new high-def formats won't have this advantage. DVDs are already a retail consumer-oriented product.n. Quality of image is its only selling point. My fear is that, in a push to sell the new formats, companies will artificially manipulate the dist. of DVDs to give the new formats a leg-up.

[unikrunk]

Welcome to the zone Walt; nice first post. Watch out for the grammar-nazis.

/meaning me and dennismm

[RogueScribner]

Doc pretty much nails it.

[vicious_bastard]

http://in.tech.yahoo.com/060708/139/65pz8.html

Bring it on, Blu-Ray. 50 terabyte bacteria-coated DVD in the works.

[Petri]

Seemed like a good of place as any for this. Hidef digest reviews the first movies released in both HD-DVD and Bluray to see the difference. It's not looking good for Betamax Deux.

http://www.highdefdigest.com/feature_blurayvshddvd_firstcomparison.html

Training Day

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang

Rumor Has it

[TheBaxter]

Comparing Blu-Ray and HD-DVD based on things like image quality, sound quality, menu access, etc. is ALF. the only significant difference between the two is how the data is physically stored on disc, and how much data each can hold. how the picture looks depends on a lot of things, but the storage medium is not one of them. the codec, the amount of disk space devoted to the film and the corresponding amount of compression used to make it fit into that space, and most importantly, the quality of the player, are the things that will impact the image and sound quality.

the guy who wrote those reviews should know better. as he himself says, he only has one hd-dvd and one blu-ray player to compare. anyone who's owned more than one dvd player in their life knows that some dvd players look better than others. it's fair to compare those specific players, but to suggest that the results of the comparison have any relationship to the storage medium is as ALF as thinking that a CD sound file would sound better or worse depending on whether you listened to it off a CD or a computer hard drive. any difference you would hear would be from the hardware playing it, not from where or how the file is stored.

i have no doubt that the differences he saw exist. but the explanation is pretty obvious: the samsung player is crap. samsung makes crap. so it shouldn't be a surprise that the first blu-ray player doesn't look all that hot if it's coming from samsung. they rushed the thing out so they could get it to market first, and obviously they cut a lot of corners to do it. the same thing is true of their TVs. samsung had the first 1080p TV out, and they were in such a rush to do it that they forgot to bother giving it 3:2 pulldown capability for 1080i material. not only that, but it's been widely reported that the same samsung blu-ray player used in these reviews looks much worse than the toshiba hd-dvd player when playing regular dvd's. in this case, in a head-to-head comparison between the two players playing the exact same format, the samsung is far inferior to the toshiba. so it stands to reason that the differences in this review are due to the players, not the format used. samsung is a crappy company that is more interested in marketing than in making quality products. i don't know what sony was thinking in letting them come to market with a blu-ray player first, since sony will definitely have a better player available. but then again, i don't know what sony is thinking with a lot of the stupid decisions they're making with blu-ray. by letting samsung come out with a blu-ray player first, they've ended up putting out a player that is so inferior in quality to the hd-dvd player that people who don't understand the technology are blaming it on the format instead of the player quality. as if blu-ray needed more bad press.

anyway, every single fault in those reviews that is attributed to blu-ray is a result of either the crappy samsung player or an issue with the transfer. the cropping issue is obviously a player issue. there's no reason why a blu-ray disc would be "inherently" cropped, and i doubt they used different transfers for the hd-dvd and blu-ray releases. all tv's crop the picture to some extent, and the amount varies by each tv. the player shouldn't crop it at all, but obviously the samsung player does. that doesn't mean the sony player or future players will. the other differences in image quality could be due to the codec, which is different on the two releases, but there's nothing inherent to blu-ray or hd-dvd that says they have to use one codec or the other. blu-ray could use the same VC1 codec if it wanted to, or switch to MPEG4 which is what is most likely going to happen. the compression artifacts are almost entirely the result of the disk space devoted to the film, and in fact in the kiss kiss bang bang review, the blu-ray performed just as well in this respect when it was given the same amount of space on the disk as the hd-dvd version. comparing the audio tracks is not even fair, because warner didn't bother to put the enhanced audio track on the blu-ray for whatever reason. again, that has nothing to do with blu-ray. and comparing the menu speeds is the stupidest part yet, because the menu speed is ENTIRELY the player, not the disk.

if this was a comparison between two HD players that happen to play different formats, then you can draw the conclusion that Toshiba makes a better HD player than Samsung. but it says nothing about the relative merits of HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. and when it comes to audio and video performance, there is nothing to say - they'll both look exactly the same, provided the hardware they're being played on is of equal quality.

[Petri]

So you're saying that, like the Betamax, Sony may have a superior technology but because of poor business decisions and/or marketing decisions the average consumer will get the impression that Blu-ray:

A. Costs more

B. Is inferior to HD-DVD

But the reasons for this is not the technology be it compression or medium, but rather the fact that Toshiba released a quality player for the HD-DVD's maiden voyage while Samsung released a piece of shit.

Thus Blu-Ray will continue to get a bad rap and leave a bad impression in the mind of the average consumer who may, because of this, opt to go with HD-DVD.

Or... they could just be like me and refuse to go to a new video medium until we have something equivalent to the holodeck

[TheBaxter]

So you're saying that, like the Betamax, Sony may have a superior technology but because of poor business decisions and/or marketing decisions the average consumer will get the impression that Blu-ray:

A. Costs more

B. Is inferior to HD-DVD

But the reasons for this is not the technology be it compression or medium, but rather the fact that Toshiba released a quality player for the HD-DVD's maiden voyage while Samsung released a piece of shit.

Thus Blu-Ray will continue to get a bad rap and leave a bad impression in the mind of the average consumer who may, because of this, opt to go with HD-DVD.

Or... they could just be like me and refuse to go to a new video medium until we have something equivalent to the holodeck

basically yeah. sony is screwing themselves all over again.

i don't think the average consumer is gonna go with either until, at the very least, one format comes out on top. which format that is will be decided by the early adopters. and the early blu-ray adopters got screwed because the first blu-ray player came from samsung and is crap, so that will probably swing things towards HD-DVD.

i think blu-ray is a better format simply because it has more storage capacity (which is the only significant difference between the two anyway). but the difference isn't enough to make me really care that much. i'd rather have hd-dvd and no format war, then wait another 2 or 3 years for blu-ray to come out on top. i'm not buying either til one becomes the clear winner.

[Wounded Warsong]

i'm not buying either til one becomes the clear winner.

Which could sadly be a while. But I'm doing the same thing, DVD's are still fine, IMO. But I'll be getting a PS3/HDTV pretty soon, probably before the end of the year, so I know I'll want to start buying Blu-ray movies soon. I'm not going to buy an HD-DVD player for as much as they are, and I don't own an Xbox 360 so I couldn't buy the HD-DVD drive for that, so for me Blu-ray is pretty much the one I'm hoping for.

[Chairman Kaga]

blu-ray could use the same VC1 codec if it wanted to, or switch to MPEG4 which is what is most likely going to happen.

I think that is highly unlikely. Sony owns over 85 patents on MPEG2, which is the codec of all of the so far released Blu-Ray discs, thus entitling them to even more rights money for evey disc encoded. No wonder they need a 50 Gig disc as a result.

[AtomicHyperbole]

Incidentally, Samsung don't make crap. Their LCD's are the weapon of choice for all AAA companies showing off their HD at the moment.

But wow, isn't this technology great? At last I'll see Jennifer Anistons blonde arm hair the way it was meant to be seen!

Jesus Christ...

[TheBaxter]

blu-ray could use the same VC1 codec if it wanted to, or switch to MPEG4 which is what is most likely going to happen.

I think that is highly unlikely. Sony owns over 85 patents on MPEG2, which is the codec of all of the so far released Blu-Ray discs, thus entitling them to even more rights money for evey disc encoded. No wonder they need a 50 Gig disc as a result.

perhaps, but that, again, would just be sony being idiots. there's no technical reason why a blu-ray movie can't be encoded in VC1 or MPEG4. they may want to stick to MPEG2 out of greed, but if other codecs really do outperform MPEG2 and it starts to sway things toward HD-DVD, i think they'd dump it to ensure blu-ray succeeded. they won't be making much money off Blu-Ray OR MPEG2 if the format fails due to them being excessively greedy. then again, maybe i'm giving sony too much credit for being able to make a good business decision.

[Chairman Kaga]

Zactly Baxter. Sometimes I wonder how companies can even get to where they are in the world with that type of decision making.

[TheBaxter]

Incidentally, Samsung don't make crap. Their LCD's are the weapon of choice for all AAA companies showing off their HD at the moment.

But wow, isn't this technology great? At last I'll see Jennifer Anistons blonde arm hair the way it was meant to be seen!

Jesus Christ...

i don't know about their LCDs, but the first HDTV i bought was a samsung DLP and i had a lot of problems with it. luckily they showed up early enough that i could exchange it for something else. samsung quality control is terrible, i've heard plenty of horror stories from other people who had their tvs. their plasmas look worse than most other plasmas because they overprocess the signal, which also seems to be a problem with their blu-ray player. i've been following the hd players closely because i'm an HD convert and once i feel it's safe to do so (ie. no more format war), i'll be jumping on the first decent one i can get a hold of. the reports on the samsung have been pretty terrible, and it's been disheartening to see people blaming the issues on blu-ray when they're really due to a poorly made product.

[wheredidigo111]

Sorry, Blu-Ray is nice and all but I don't care. I have DVD I don't need Blu-Ray. If I where Sony right now I would just dump it and take it out of there Ps3. I know Blu-Ray is nicer and can hole more but it's to expensive right now. Unless I get a bigger paycheck. Forget it!

[Petri]

I don't know why I'm so anti-Sony. I own a Sony Hi-Def LCD tv AND the 1000 Watt Sony Dream System. Yet I hate the Playstation with a passion and am rooting for HD-DVD to win? Why? I think it's because I want PS3 to fail and if Blu-ray fails maybe it'll drag PS3 down with it. Long live Xbox 360!