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

[Lew Crippen]

You are OK with an HDCP compliant DVI input. HDMI also carries audio, but you can very easily use separate audio feeds. There are plenty of HDMI to DVI conversions available, and so long as your DVI is HDCP compliant you have no problems.

 

[Qui-Gon John]

But here's the thing. I may be in the minority, but the changes from VHS to SD-DVD were SO DRAMATIC, it was really worth buying into. Picture Quality, Sound Quality, durability of the disc vs. tape, ease of going where you want vs. FF or REW, so many things.

But from SD-DVD to HD/BR, the differences are not so drastic for a lot of people. Is the picture better, undeniably yes. But is it so much better that one really needs to have it, to invest in new displays, new players and new media, for many people the answer is no. On most SD-DVD's you got such a good picture already, and light years better than VHS, that for many of us, we don't really care if the higher definition will show us the pimples on Sean Connery's _ _ _. We're perfectly fine with the quality of what we have now. And, other than improved PQ & AQ, there is no real benefit to HD. The same ease of usage, the same size media, it really can't compare to the leap from VHS to DVD. Also, most of the HD-DVD's are priced higher than SD, so that's another drawback in switching over.

Some people think it is worth all the extra effort and money, great for them. But I just don't want to see things develop to the point where people who are fine with SD can't get new titles. But if HD stays alive as a niche market, then both SD & HD titles should be available for a long time to come.

 

[DaveF]

Really? I thought I'd read the opposite: if the content protection flag is enabled, DVI will not be recognized as a "reliable" HD connection and the signal will be downgraded.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Yes, I do remember this vividly myself as an early DVD adopter in March '97. In those early days of the DVD launching I was one of the voices in the minority (much like some HD fans are at present) but back then I just knew that DVD was here to stay and that overpriced and oversized LD's were naturally going to be the first to go. I never had any remote faith that the dreaded and unfriendly DIVX format would ever work out either and sure enough, it never did. But at the time, S-DVD -- at least to me -- seemed like it couldn't lose.

It's funny looking back on it, actually, as I recall even IMAGE releasing their first DVD of THE TERMINATOR rather reluctantly, even adding something to their press release like: "if you expect extra features, you ought to get the laserdisc". It's hard to believe it now but there was indeed GREAT resistance by studios and LD collectors to S-DVD.

Now, I don't claim to be clairvoyant, but I just don't see it going the same way for S-DVD into HD-DVD.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

I'm actually of that thinking too, once I know what format "wins" in the "format war". I may very well wind up doing just this if either (HD or BR) winds up being a format with staying power, and as long as the machines are backwards compatible with S-DVD.

 

[Malcolm R]

That's the nail on the head, right there. Perfectly stated.

And no, you're not in the minority, you very likely speak for the majority of average consumers. The leap in quality from VHS to DVD was massive. The leap from DVD to HD-DVD is much more subtle and isn't a selling point for most consumers, especially when most of their discretionary income is being sucked up by ever higher energy, health care, and education expenses.

 

[Larry Sutliff]

The ICT content protection flag would be used for component, DVI HDCP is fine. That's how I have my player hooked up.

 

[Sami Kallio]

I see more and more people getting big screen HD TV's. For those people the leap in quality from DVD to HD is as big (in PQ) as from VHS to DVD. For people with small displays it isn't going to be a big deal but many households now have 50"+ TV's.

It's going to be a slow road to travel, just like going from SD broadcast to HD broadcast but the change is inevitable.

 

[Brent M]

Yes, many people are getting big screen HDTVs, but that still doesn't mean they care about the difference in PQ between DVD and HD. Most of them just want the larger size screen for DVDs and they're really not interested in re-buying into a brand new format(or formats). I completely agree that HD is an improvement over DVD, but it's NOT(and I repeat NOT) as big a leap in quality as DVD was over VHS. That difference was night and day, this is night and dusk.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Where did you read that? As mentioned by Larry, the ICT flag, if set will downrez over component, not digital. DVI being digital does not have this issue—and so long as everything is HDCP compliant, the signal will be passed though with no problems.

 

[Sami Kallio]

Even on a 720p it's a very big difference. On a large 1080p display it is a night and day difference. I have a 720p FP (between 90-100") and HD-DVD looks quite a lot better than SD-DVD, then I have a 61" 1080p DLP TV and the difference is bigger than I remember it was from VHS to DVD (I don't care to hook up a VHS player anymore to do a comparison).

At this point a lot of people do not have displays that do justice to true 1080 HD, even a lot of videophiles are stuck with 720p sets for quite some time. That is going to slow down the progress to HD but it's not going to stop it. Players will get cheaper and more and more movies will be available, that means more and more HD customers. Nobody is saying it will happen over night but saying it will be niche product and never overtake SD-DVD is not quite realistic. If HD wasn't going to succeed we all would still be buying 480 TV sets and there would be no HD broadcasts.

 

[RickER]

LD was around over 20 years. The first players came out about 1978. You only have to watch Airport 77 to see one. Of course that movie was from Universal, the folks behind DiscoVision. But it was thanks to Pioneer that LD held out til DVD. Pioneer was true to the LD fans for MANY years. They were very good to replace those older LDs that suffered from rot years later! I bought my first LD player in 1983. The one i have now Pioneer 704 has served me well for about 10 years!
Now if i could buy a DVD player as nice as my Sony 7700 id do it. Yep, id buy a HD player of some type just to get a WELL BUILT machine for upconversion of my SD discs.

 

[Michael Elliott]

More than a consumer, I'm a film fan. God forbid if the only way I could see STAR WARS was from a LD print then yes I would take it. Universal didn't do a "Warner job" on FRANKENSTEIN and BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN so am I suppose to quit watching two of my favorite films until a greedy, money hungry studio decides to go all out? And who's to say if they will ever go all out on a title?

I own at least 300 movies that have NEVER been released on ANY home format. No Beta, no VHS, no LD, no DVD and I'm willing to bet they'll never be on HD. Do we pretend these films were never made because Warner, Fox or Paramount didn't release a remastered DVD? Not I, sir. I'll take the poor quality 16mm transfer over nothing.

As for the second stuff you said, worthless tech stuff that has nothing to do with the movie.

David, I'm not sure what movies are your favorite but let's just say the 1.85:1 DEATH WISH is your favorite film of all time. Paramount releases a 2.5/5, non-anamorphic transfer of this film and won't be re-releasing it anytime soon. Are you going to tell me that you would never watch the film again because it's not up to certain "standards" of DVD? Or, let's say Paramount never released DEATH WISH to DVD or HD and the only way you could view it was the open matte VHS. This, being one of your favorite films, would you never watch it again simply because it isn't good enough of a DVD?

I'm not sure how many here has seen the new version of THE SEARCHERS but I think most people feel this is a brilliant transfer. Now, according to people here, this already brilliant transfer can look a lot better. If this better version is never released does that mean the already great, SD version isn't up to "quality standards"? If we have a great SD transfer and a greater HD transfer, is there really anything wrong with being happy with the great SD transfer?


I guess Mr. Harris would be best fit to answer this but would anyone say HD is the best our movies will ever look? It seems SD has gotten better from year to year due to new technology. Several HD titles have been reviewed here but is it fair to say that these titles will look even better five years from now when the technology gets better? Won't studios be hitting us with countless re-releases like they are now? If the technology improves then would anyone say it's silly to jump on board now since three years from now MILLION DOLLAR BABY will look even better and be re-released with this better transfer.

If someone could really tell me that HD today is the best things will ever be then I might change my tune. Like Robert, I've got the money to go out and buy a machine but something tells me, being 26 years old, that newer and better technology will come along in my lifetime that will make HD look poor. However, if HD today is the greatest it'll get without buying 35mm prints, then I will certainly reconsider the format.

 

[Robert Harris]

"Newer and better" technology will continue to come along, in small and large ways surpassing accepted technology.

The difference between HD-DVD, be it HD or BD, is that for the first time, there is an absolute transparency creating a home theater representation of cinema as opposed to high quality video.

For even large home size screens, 1k DVD, with its higher quality levels of color, black, shadow detail and overall stability, is finally a format that has no absolute need to go further into 2 or 4k -- the commerical alternatives.

There has always been something lacking.

No longer.

RAH

 

[Dave Mack]

Very true and exciting but Mr. Harris, it's very late sir. Get some sleep!


Me, I have chronic insomnia!

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Two years ago I and other HTF members had the opportunity to
watch a Blu-Ray demo at Sony studios. We watched side-by-side
SD/BLU-RAY images of Lawrence Of Arabia projected on a
huge movie screen.

The difference in picture quality was nothing short of dramatic.
A rather muddy DVD image was suddenly replaced by a razor-sharp,
highly detailed image.

...but this was on a movie screen. I expect the image differences
to be far more dramatic on a 100' screen rather than a home
television screen.

I'm not dismissing the difference in quality between SD and HD.
What I am pointing out is that while WE the enthusiasts may
appreciate the dramatic differences between the two formats,
I think it's gonna be a hard sell to the general public who are
probably very comfortable with the quality they are getting with
DVD.

To be honest, I'm way too comfortable with DVD right now
to shell out the amount of money (over $4k) to upgrade my
home theater to properly display the new formats.

Listen, the conversation in this thread has valid points from
both sides. Nobody is bashing anyone for jumping into or
abstaining from jumping into these formats. Personally, I
think all of us will "eventually" get into these formats within
the next year. I think finances and patience will play the
biggest parts in just how soon we migrate.

 

[Qui-Gon John]

Right Ron, basically it comes down to personal opinion and the eye of the beholder. The more techno HT enthusiasts see a much bigger difference than the Joe Average because it's what they are into. But for the overwhelming majority of consumers, (not of HT enthusiasts), the difference is not enough for them to want to invest all the extra money into. Also, most of the average consumers aren't going to want to have 2 players and 2 different sets of media, HD for new stuff and things they want to upgrade on, and SD for the rest of their collection. They're going to want to keep it simple and just stay with SD. Then you also have the fact that each HD title is a bit more expensive than the SD counterpart.

And even if one feels the difference in PQ is as huge as Sami states, it is still the only real advantage, none of the other myriad of advantages that the move from VHS to DVD had.

And still, personally, I agree much more with Brent's view that the difference in PQ, while there, is still not as huge as it was from VHS to DVD. I mean, most of the movies I had on VHS, while I loved watching the movies, I hated the poor PQ I had to endure. I never even remotely think that with SD-DVD.

And true, nobody seems to be bashing anyone for buying into the formats early or abstaining, as well they shouldn't. It comes down to personal preference and just how important certain things are to a person. If the very best PQ is the most important thing to you and you have the money, you're probably an early adopter. If very good PQ is important, but also being able to spend money on more titles or other needs of life, then you're probably someone who will never make the change or only if it becomes the only game in town.

 

[Steve Christou]

It's refreshing to know one of the owners of the Home Theater Forum has the same viewpoint on this issue as many of us here. I have to say some of the comments I've read on this thread have been bordering on the "don't dare call yourself a film enthusiast if you're not planning on switching to HD any time soon" variety. I've ranted about this attitude in another thread and I don't want to continue here suffice to say I've seen HD displayed at a friends house, while admittedly clear and sharp was not 'day and night' different from SD-DVD as some here are implying and did not suddenly make me want to sell my dvds on ebay and switch to HD. Maybe one day I'll buy a bigger set up and make the move but not for some time yet.

 

[Sami Kallio]

Very good points Ronald, and exactly how I am feeling. Even those who think the difference isn't as much as we others feel, they will be getting their players when the prices drop (and they will). When the prices get close to SD-DVD then all those who care about PQ will get a player, and shortly after that point there isn't a reason why the average joe won't get his player as they can have a mcuh better format for just a little more. We early adopters pay the premium and I think that's why some of the critics are ready to put it into niche market but prices are not going to stay high. There are too many people who have already invested a lot of money for (large) HD displays, they will invest more to get to use them at their potential.

Those who are dismissing the difference as marginal propably haven't seen the two side by side, or one after another. Initially I thought that was the case as well, I felt that it wasn't that much of a difference, that changed quick when I played the first SD-DVD with my old DVD player that doesn't upconvert. It's funny how your memory tricks you. Upconverting looks closer to HD-DVD but there is still quite a lof of difference. Now you can get at home the picture and the colours that you have been drooling over at your local movie theater. Yes, the format is that good.

 

[Sami Kallio]

That surely is the wrong attitude, you can be a film enthusiast without investing a lot money into your hobby. I did watch my movies with a 480i CRT front projector for the longest time. For DVD's that's still a fine display. I was still longing for that movie theater picture everytime my girlfriend dragged me into the movies. I really didn't want to go, partly because I enjoy the sound setup at home much better, partly because it always reminded me of how my picture wasn't nearly as good as theirs. Now, it's about the weak sound but I still need to go, once in a while to keep the peace.

My theater room still needs an improvement, maybe that Sony Ruby will be there someday. But I can still call myself a film enthusiast even if I can't afford it at this time. I do like to get the best possible picture I can at home, and that $500 was well in my current budget so there was no need to hold back although I could get it cheaper later. I made the jump to HD late but I made it at once.