Re: Great article on all the post format war doomsaying...
This discussion seems to be going in circles.
HDM is ALWAYS SPECTACULARLY better.
HDM is better, but not that much better (especially to the "average consumer").
If you can't see the improvement, your eyes/gear/setup is wrong or faulty.
If you think the "average consumer" cares about ...
Lather, rinse, repeat.
As the narrator on "Pushing Daisies" (great show) likes to say, "The facts are these":
One--HDM is better. Objectively speaking, all else being equal, the PQ is better.
Two--not everyone values the quality of the improvement equally. Many see little difference (visual equivalent of those who think iTunes downloads are indistinguishable from hi-res audio), so they are unlikely to care enough to upgrade until it becomes the only game in town. Some see the difference but only if the screen is big enough (so if they have not the room/funds for such a screen, unlikely to upgrade). Some see enough improvement to warrant an upgrade (I am in this category, but there are some HDM presentations that have garnered effusive praise that, to me, are not THAT impressive--they're better, but it isn't necessarily spectacular and I suspect I'm not alone in that reaction). Some think it so much better they claim to find anything less than HDM painful to watch (a small group, but vocal enough). And then there are "the perfectionists". It seems, for them, there are only a handful (fewer than 20, it appears) of HDM releases that merit a positive review--everything else has "glaring flaws" that make it unconscionable to accept (I'm exaggerating, but only slightly).
Three--price. Like it or not, both the current low prices of SD DVD players/media and the artificially low prices of HD DVD, driven first by the "format war" and then by "fire sales", have combined to create the general (erroneous) expectation that right now, this minute, HDM players (Blu-ray) should be no more than 150$ for an entry level model and the discs should only be 1-2 dollars more than SD DVD. Those conditions will occur, but not immediately. However, unrealistic expectations make the general public hesitant to jump in.
Four--HDM is an EVOLUTIONARY, not REVOLUTIONARY change and, to the general public, appears to be a far less dramatic one than the change from VHS to DVD. Enthusiasts may not agree, but they are not the primary market for companies who want to make billions in sales of gear/media.
So what can we conclude? I think it is safe to say, as others have, that HDM will take a longer time to penetrate the market than DVD did. I personally think it will never attain the same level of penetration simply because by the time HDTVs are as common in households as SD TVs are (it is quite a number of years away from happening), some other format will have emerged so that future players will be multi-format (not limited to optical media). The only way for HDM to become dominant over SD DVD in a short amount of time would be for the studios to stop DVD altogether in as abrupt a fashion as HD DVD has stopped.
On the endless debate of whether it is worth upgrading, for most people, I think it will rest on screen size. For all but enthusiasts, anything under 50 inches will be a hard sell, I suspect--especially for those sitting 12-15 feet away from a 37-42 inch screen (the vast majority of setups).
Anyway, just my 2 cents. I've no illusions the debate will stop (nor should it, as long as it remains polite--I've learned a lot).
