"Why the World Doesn't Need Hi-Def DVD's"- NY Times article by David Pogue:

JediFonger · 05-11-2006, 11:43 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/11/te...rssnyt&emc=rss

the following is only a snippet from the article itself (not entire thing):

Quote:

"Reason 1: The average person can see the difference in picture quality, but only on a big, high-def screen, preferably side by side with a standard DVD signal. The leap forward is nowhere as great as it was from, say, VHS to DVD.

Reason 2: For a brand-new technology, the A1 is a reasonably priced razor — but it's got a serious blade shortage. Only 20 will be available by the end of this month, priced at $20 to $40, and only a couple of hundred are expected by year's end. (Tens of thousands are available in the traditional DVD format.)

Reason 3 (and this is the big one): You could be placing a very big bet on the wrong horse.

In fact, this might even be a race that neither horse wins; the public may well decide that regular DVD's are just fine as they are. (Remember SACD and DVD-Audio, two rival "high-definition audio" formats that also required new players and new discs? Didn't think so. Both are well on their way to the great eBay in the sky.)

You, and everyone else, have everything to gain by waiting until prices fall, the movie catalog grows and a single standard emerges. After all, how will you feel if you buy a player and a bunch of movies — and the one you picked turns out to be the Betamax of the new millennium?"

very interesting "summary" of many of our thoughts we've all shared here.

Craig Sherman · 05-11-2006, 12:20 PM

And now, counterpoint. David, you ignorant--

1. Sure, regular DVDs look good NOW. Just wait until FCC-mandated HDTV is the norm (probably not til decade's end, but eventually) and suddenly all our nice 480p DVDs don't look as good as broadcast TV? That won't do! Picture the mythical "Joe Sixpack" and his new 1080i tv he got at Wal-Mart. He pops in his DVD of (insert standard DVD film here) and compares it to the same film on HBO HD, he's gonna be quite tweaked. THAT's when a hi-def disc format will kick in. Give it time...

2. I can still recall going to Tower Records in Boston in the Summer and even Fall of 1997 and having to find the tiny DVD island in the huge LaserDisc section. Content growth takes time. Heck, it's been nearly 10 years, and there are still classic films hitting DVD for the first time! Again, give it time.

3. Unlike the tape format wars, in which the competing formats were of different shape and size, we're talking today about the exact same shape and size media, as it has been since the first compact disc 20+ years ago. This opens up the possibility (likelihood?) of a universal player in the not-too-distant future. Not to sound like a broken record, but... give it time.

His last paragraph goes along with my overall call to patience. Maybe his headline (rarely thought up by the article author) should read "Why the World Doesn't Need Hi-Def DVD's...YET." We'll all have to see how this pans out.

Back on my meds,

CS

Adam_R · 05-11-2006, 12:40 PM

^ I don't think the FCC has any plans to mandate HD tv ever. Are you thinking of the switch over to all digital tv? That is very different from HD, as I am sure you know.

Garrett Lundy · 05-11-2006, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Only 20 will be available by the end of this month, priced at $20 to $40, and only a couple of hundred are expected by year's end.

Ha!, a couple hundred titles will require what? 15 titles to be released every tuesday for the rest of the year? I think 75 by Christmas is a more likely bet.

Sami Kallio · 05-11-2006, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig Sherman

Maybe his headline (rarely thought up by the article author) should read "Why the World Doesn't Need Hi-Def DVD's...YET."

YET would have made it a more agreeable but then again, it has to start from somewhere. They are not going to wait until several hundred HD-DVD's are available and player market is saturated with hundreds of different models and brands. That would be crazy.

Neflix has 28 titles listed as of now, some are released and some are on their way.

**HTF Ads**

Paul_Scott · 05-11-2006, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig Sherman

3. Unlike the tape format wars, in which the competing formats were of different shape and size, we're talking today about the exact same shape and size media, as it has been since the first compact disc 20+ years ago. This opens up the possibility (likelihood?) of a universal player in the not-too-distant future. Not to sound like a broken record, but... give it time.

I thought Bd discs were actually a bit bigger than DVD/HD DVDs?
not by much, but still not exactly the same size.

Paul McElligott · 05-11-2006, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul_Scott

I thought Bd discs were actually a bit bigger than DVD/HD DVDs?
not by much, but still not exactly the same size.

I think they would have been if they had used the caddies/cartridge system the early units needed. As far as I know, BD disks are the same diameter as CD/DVD/HD DVD but a little thinner.

Jack Briggs · 05-11-2006, 04:47 PM

The New York Times writer may be expressing the thoughts of the non-enthusiast, but all I can say is that Robert Harris's reports on the titles he has screened has whetted my appetite tremendously. I am certain that the advantages of HD DVD would be perfectly obvious on a Sony KD-34XBR960 (which is what I'm watching).

Walter Kittel · 05-11-2006, 05:18 PM

Quote:

but all I can say is that Robert Harris's reports on the titles he has screened has whetted my appetite tremendously.

It is pretty frickin' incredible Jack. Watched Training Day last night and it looked terrific. On larger displays there is simply no comparison to SD DVD. If Warner Bros. would ever get around to releasing that little film from 1968 that you and I both admire, I'll probably wet myself watching it on HD-DVD.

- Walter.