This thread has two branches. One is "renting vs owning". the other is "continuing to buy S-DVD now that HD-DVD is a reality".
I rent a lot more than I used to. I probably have 400+ dVDs, and I am trying to avoid blind-buying movies I will probably not watch again. Unless it's a classic, or simply something that I really loved at the box office, I prefer to rent.
As to the second part, I liked this post by Ted Todorov:
After I got a HDTV, I was blown away by the picture quality @ 480p (my previous projection TV did not have component inputs). However, when I started watching HDTV broadcasts in 1080i, saw that 480p, while good, was not really HD.
So, I bought a Sony upconverting player that connects via HDMI. This IMO is quite an improvement over 480p. I bought a couple of Rudy Maxa's travel videos, which I'd seen on PBS in 1080i. they are shot in that resolution, and with my player and set, the S-DVDs look pretty much the same as the broadcast.
I will upgrade to HD-DVD when all the bugs are worked out of the hardware, when the formats are more stablized, and when there are more titles avaialble. Until then, upconverted S-DVD looks quite good to me. However, i appreciate that S-DVD is not as good as HD-DVD. Even so-called "reference quality" S-DVDs will exhibit artifacting in some sequences, so I, for one, will enjoy the higher bitrate of HD-DVD.
One more thing about "Joe Six-Pack"'s acceptance of new formats: Joe never did buy into laserdisc, so comparing the S-DVD format to laserdisc is inappropriate, IMO (HD-DVD is the one that should be compared to Laserdisc). What sold him on DVD is the relative cheapness of hardware and software, the small size of the discs, the addition of special features, and most importantly-instant access to any spot on the disc. VHS was strictly linear, and required lots of fast-forwarding and rewinding. Also, VHS was prone to wear and damage from constant play. DVD offered ease of play, and something close to permanence. The jump from VHS technology to DVD is huge IMO, in terms of the user interface. S-DVD to HD-DVD is going to look like the same format to Joe Six-pack, who will not buy into the better picture quality, especially if he is the type who does not even connect his current DVD player to a digital surround system (and we know the vast majority do not).
So, IMO, the HD-DVD market is at the stage laserdisc was: appealing to the hard-core early adopters who can appreciate everything the new technology can offer, and Laserdisc never did cross over to mass acceptance. So far, I don't think the masses are even aware of HD-DVD's existence. When prices come down, it may be that people will adopt without being aware they are doing so, if all their old discs continue to play on the new hardware.
I rent a lot more than I used to. I probably have 400+ dVDs, and I am trying to avoid blind-buying movies I will probably not watch again. Unless it's a classic, or simply something that I really loved at the box office, I prefer to rent.
As to the second part, I liked this post by Ted Todorov:
After I got a HDTV, I was blown away by the picture quality @ 480p (my previous projection TV did not have component inputs). However, when I started watching HDTV broadcasts in 1080i, saw that 480p, while good, was not really HD.
So, I bought a Sony upconverting player that connects via HDMI. This IMO is quite an improvement over 480p. I bought a couple of Rudy Maxa's travel videos, which I'd seen on PBS in 1080i. they are shot in that resolution, and with my player and set, the S-DVDs look pretty much the same as the broadcast.
I will upgrade to HD-DVD when all the bugs are worked out of the hardware, when the formats are more stablized, and when there are more titles avaialble. Until then, upconverted S-DVD looks quite good to me. However, i appreciate that S-DVD is not as good as HD-DVD. Even so-called "reference quality" S-DVDs will exhibit artifacting in some sequences, so I, for one, will enjoy the higher bitrate of HD-DVD.
One more thing about "Joe Six-Pack"'s acceptance of new formats: Joe never did buy into laserdisc, so comparing the S-DVD format to laserdisc is inappropriate, IMO (HD-DVD is the one that should be compared to Laserdisc). What sold him on DVD is the relative cheapness of hardware and software, the small size of the discs, the addition of special features, and most importantly-instant access to any spot on the disc. VHS was strictly linear, and required lots of fast-forwarding and rewinding. Also, VHS was prone to wear and damage from constant play. DVD offered ease of play, and something close to permanence. The jump from VHS technology to DVD is huge IMO, in terms of the user interface. S-DVD to HD-DVD is going to look like the same format to Joe Six-pack, who will not buy into the better picture quality, especially if he is the type who does not even connect his current DVD player to a digital surround system (and we know the vast majority do not).
So, IMO, the HD-DVD market is at the stage laserdisc was: appealing to the hard-core early adopters who can appreciate everything the new technology can offer, and Laserdisc never did cross over to mass acceptance. So far, I don't think the masses are even aware of HD-DVD's existence. When prices come down, it may be that people will adopt without being aware they are doing so, if all their old discs continue to play on the new hardware.