A humble request to our HD-DVD brethren (1 Viewer)

[Nils Luehrmann]

Actually there is even more to it than that. You suggested that people DID see a better picture with DVD and ran out to buy it, and based on what you have read, you are assuming the same is not true for HD video.

Lots of problems with making that assumption, least of which is the fact that depite wide industry support and choices of players and content, only about 200,000 DVD players sold in the US in 1997 - and the fact that DVD offered several key convenience features over both VHS and LD, which was clearly a large draw. However, DVD never really took off until 2000 when the prices of entry-level players had dropped below $300.

Currently BD players are not even out yet and there is only 1 HD video player on the market (the premium model from Toshibas is the same player with added features). Furthermore Toshiba has offered a very limited supply.

I would say suggesting that people are not having the same reaction to HD video as they did with DVD based on what you read here from those such as myself who are not "running" out to buy an HD player and most importantly the market conditions and how they compare with DVD's when it was released - is in fact very much an assumption.

When there are as many HD players as there were DVD players available on the market, proper displays to show them on, similar amounts of titles to chose from, then you might be able to make some accurate comparisons. Although even then, this would still mean you are assuming everyone who "ran" out to buy a DVD player did so based primarily on picture quality. Market research over the last ten years likely suggests that was one of the less important reasons for why DVD became a mass market darling - and that the three-C's (Cost, Convenience, and Content) were in fact the primary driving force for the success of DVD.

The fact that HD video currently lacks all three of the three-C’s, only has one player out with limited supplies, and is currently embroiled in a format war may be significant factors in why many are not “running” out to buy an HD player. Not as you might suggst, because they don't see as much of an improvement in picture quality and sound as they did with DVD.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Very true.

The reason why I advocate for upgrading software *before* one has the dispay to take full advantage is because we movie collectors buy *lots* of movie discs. And we spend *thousands* more on software (most of us) than we do on our TV set.

A few years from now big-screen 1080P displays will be commonplace. Won't it be nice to have HD 1080 titles in your library ready to go? Believe me... when you finally get your new set in a few years is not the time to suddenly regret that you continued to invest in standard-def software!

"When" one starts to buy new titles in HD is a personal decision. But there shouldn't be an "if" question... just a "when"!

 

[RobertR]

Probably not. All I said was it hasn’t jumped out at them, not that it couldn’t possibly do so. Of course, you know what they’d say about having to buy a 1080p display...which gets back to the “is it worth it” debate.

 

[RobertR]

I’m only repeating what people said–that they haven’t seen enough of a difference to make it worth it to them. This requires ZERO assumptions on my part.

 

[Michael Elliott]

David, you keep saying this as if it were a fact. Technically speaking what you said might be true but we could factor in countless other things. If someone really doesn't know what they're looking for then they might not see as big as a jump as you or I. Heck, even if someone has poor eye sight, this would take away from what they were seeing. Plus, how many times have reviewers here added notes to the reviews stating that "smaller screens won't notice these issues". I used it countless times because you can certainly tell a difference when viewing something on a 4:3 set compared to a 16x9 set. Having recently bought a projector, you can tell a difference here too so here are three different "reviews" I could give for the same DVD and all of them could say something else.

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

Hate to say this David... but I told you so. :frowning:

For the last few years I have warned reviewers about using the whole "owners of big screens will notice the difference" mantra, and the response I got was... "they'll understand what we mean..." :frowning:

Now you are going to have your hands full explaining what you really meant and how the whole "big screen" difference is in fact a terribly misunderstood myth.

I say this as an owner of a +200" outdoor screen, 165" garage screen, 98" dedicate theater screen, 46" family room screen, 20" PC screen, and 15" laptop screen. When the displays are using the same resolution, technology, and source.... it's all about the viewing angle!!!!!!!!

:star: This is in fact one time where size really doesn't matter!!!!! (in fact having to large a screen can, and usually does degrade the image... but there are threads already available to read on that subject).

 

[Sean Bryan]

My translation: I'm worried that if HD is successful it is going to affect my enjoyment of SD-DVD, so I'm really hoping it won't be that successful.

 

[Qui-Gon John]

Not my enjoyment, I'll still enjoy SD just fine. As long as SD titles are still available, if others want to get into HD I say fine, "a salud". Just as long as those who are happy with SD can still get new titles.

 

[DaveF]

(pardon my diversion...)
I searched the forum for "dvi hdmi hdcp" and concluded I was confused. I think I jumbled non-HDCP DVI, HDCP DVI, and the de-rez "feature" for component connections. But everything I found echoed Lew's & others comments here: HDCP DVI will fully work with HD-DVD connections!

That misunderstanding was a major turnoff to me, for HDDVD and BR. I feared that buying anything before I got an HDMI TV would soon be a dead end, as soon as studios decide to use the downgrade flag for non-HDCP connections.

I'm still in no rush with two-major formats competing. I'll likely wait it out. Though it would be fun to try.

 

[RickER]

I know a smart guy with the title MD after his name who thought a FULL FRAME or PAN & SCAN DVD was what he should buy to use on his PLASMA. He just set the Plasma to zoom! Yes thats right, he would zoom an already cropped picture! Smart guy with a good amount of common sense. Dont know what he was thinking in this case.

 

[Michael Elliott]

David doesn't have to worry about a thing so let me just reword what I wrote. If you go to the 1000+ review threads here, it's always those with larger screens who are seeing "faults" in transfers while those with smaller set ups don't see them. I'm sure we all remember the wonderful THE PASSION thread where that film was called the one of the worst EE transfers ever by some while other claimed it was one of the best transfers. Two versions of this didn't leak out so the two vast opinions must be a resort of something. If a transfer contains faults then it's going to be a lot more noticeable on a 100 inch screen compared to a 27 inch screen. Hell, you could switch your DVD player and probably notice a big difference as well.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Michael,

What Nils means is that screen-size *alone* is not the factor to consider...it's the *combination* of screen-size to viewing-distance that determines how much detail you will see.

Sitting close to a smaller screen shows the same detail (and faults) as sitting farther from a large screen.

If I sit 12 feet back from my 8-foot wide screen (1.5 screen widths), as you rightly thing, I'll see lots of detail in that image not seen by many other viewers with smaller sets...*** if they are sitting farther away than 1.5 screen widths when they view***.

If someone has a 3-foot wide TV (with the same resolution as my projector) and chooses to sit 4.5 feet away, they'll see *exactly* what I'm seeing!

That's what Nils is trying to say. It's not "screen size" we should talk about... it's "viewing angle" that matters.