Resolving myself to this issue of Pan & Scan: Where we stand.... (1 Viewer)

[John Berggren]

I do think the prices of widescreen HDTVs are progressively going down. When I joined Costco they had a 40" plasma WS TV for $10k. Since January 2001, the price had come down as far as $4997. They've now removed that model, though the mounting brackets remain, so I hope they'll keep it up. They also have a $1500 RP HDTV in 16x9. I would pay that much, but I don't want an RPTV.

 

[PhilipG]

So let's sum up: What Studios Can Do
1. Use Pan/Scam on-the-fly;
2. Produce a very simple educactional w/s vs p/s demo at the beginning of the disc;
3. On p/s titles, change the wording to "cropped frame transfer", or "this presentation has been cropped to fill your screen";
4. Price p/s versions higher, and release new titles one month later than their w/s counterparts;
5. Produce more 2-disc sets (w/s on disc 1, p/s on disc 2), even if the 2nd disc is just a DVD-5 (as if J6P is gonna notice). 2-disc sets sell.

 

[Andy_B]

I AM NOT SPENDING $2000 ON A TELEVISION SET. I don't know ANYONE who would. It's ridiculous.

Not if you can afford it, it is not.
Anyway, you might want to look at your fellow members home theaters before you state that you don't know anyone who would buy a widescreen set for over $2000.
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/bbs/...ent/page3.html
I would never have gotten into DVD with out first getting a gorgeous widescreen HDTV (56 inch).
And the prices are coming down and coming down VERY quickly. An equivalent model to what I bought two years ago can be had for 25-30% less today, and probably more if you shop around.
Andy

 

[Malcolm R]

I know that most of us don’t shop at Wal-Mart or Target, etc… for DVDs. Why?

I don't because Wal-Mart's selection, even in their SuperCenters, is very limited. They have a few new releases, a children's section, and a couple bargain racks, but that's it. Also, their new releases are generally higher priced than new releases at Best Buy or Circuit City (or on-line).

I continue to be amazed that Wal-Mart seems to account for so many of the DVD's sold. It must be due to the sheer number of their stores, and their locations in rural areas, since their variety of titles is quite small.

 

[Dave H]

As far as goverment demanding that everything goes digital in a few years - we all know this can easily change. Hasn't the date been pushed up already? For some reason, I don't see in three years where this will happen given the high costs of making everything digital to goverment standards.

 

[MartinTeller]

Anyway, you might want to look at your fellow members home theaters before you state that you don't know anyone who would buy a widescreen set for over $2000.

I don't know any of my fellow members personally. I'm sure there are people with exceptionally well-paying jobs or sizable trust funds. Good for them. For the average person, however, spending that much on a television set would be irresponsible and frivolous.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Martin,

While I see your point of view, how many people own boats or campers that cost thousands of dollars? On my (truly) middle-class street, there are several people with boats and/or campers that cost a lot more than my television. I don't think they all have trust funds, and if they had exceptionally well-paying jobs, they would not be living on my street.

Are they all irresponsible and frivolous?

Priorities can be personal, without risking your family's well-being.

But on the other hand, like I said earlier, the general consumer is not going to spend more than $500 on a TV.

 

[Andrew_Sch]

As long as we have to accept pan and scam, I'm of the belief that two separate SKU versions is the way to go, as long as they're distributed equally. That way, we get more room on discs for better audio/video quality and extras, and in cases where there's a two-disc set (like Glory or Shrek) with one WS disc and one FS, we won't have to pay extra for something we'll never watch and are loathe to have in our collections.

 

[Nelson Au]

Just a side note guys:

I don't believe anyone mentioned this, but I would be very amused if a first time J6P HDTV widescreen set buyer would complain about the black bars on the sides.

I don't have a HDTV or widescreen set yet, so I don't know how the set conpensates for 4:3 material, but I bet this scenerio might come up.

Nelson

 

[Dave Scarpa]

Well You could argue what I spend on Disks is frivolous, but I have friend who sit in a bar for hours spending a ton of money on drinking, I'm more apt to stay at home, buy a few beers and take that money to buy a DVD, it alll comes down to vices I Guess

 

[GlennH]

For the average person, however, spending that much on a television set would be irresponsible and frivolous.

Cue the music ....
"Call me, irresponsible ..."
A couple of years ago I would have probably agreed. But then I got into DVD, and then came the quest for a better presentation, which ultimately led to the purchase of a widescreen HDTV costing considerably over $2K.
I know, that seems like a lot to a person who thinks of it as just a "TV set" and who has never considered "home theater." Some people spend lots more on hobbies, collections, vices, travel, a more expensive home than they "really need," or you name it. Some would say they were being frivolous. I am far from rich but my family is not starving or lacking and I don't think that's being irresponsible.

 

[GregoryM]

I don't know any of my fellow members personally. I'm sure there are people with exceptionally well-paying jobs or sizable trust funds. Good for them. For the average person, however, spending that much on a television set would be irresponsible and frivolous.

I am a teacher, which is far from being an "exceptionally well-paying" job. My wife is jr. executive for a fortune 500 company (asst. manager at McDonald's). Being DINC's, we have a larger than normal disposable income than families, but are hardly in with the trust fund crowd.

We recently spent right at $2000 for a 56" RP-HDTV. Was it a frivolous purchase? Sure. All luxuries are frivolous purchases. Irresponsible? Not in the least. I choose to spend my disposable income on home theater because it is my passion. Some people collect comic books, or model trains. Some people buy a new car every few years, or have an in-ground pool, or fill their houses with stylish furniture and nicely framed artwork. My brother in law collects firearms. Choosing to spend one's disposable income on home theater is no more irresponsible than any other use to which one might put it, other than saving it or donating it to charity.

_______________

We're missing something with the Wal-Mart issue. For some people who live in rural areas, when it comes to consumer level entertainment, Wal-Mart is the equivilent of going to the mall--if Wal-Mart don't have it, it ain't worth havin'. Also, there is a lot of impulse shopping going on at those 9.44 and 14.44 aisle displays of DVD's. A lot of money is spent by people who want to buy a DVD, and are going to buy whatever is most appealing to them at the store they choose for such shopping. This is the same crowd you see in line at the movie theater who start discussing which movie to see after they arrive at the theater.

Most of us here go shopping for a specific DVD--a specific movie in a specific format, preferring one release over another, etc. When I got my new tv, I replaced my 2001 dvd. I went to Suncoast, explaining that I want the anamorphic disc (the one in the white box with the picture of the space station). Joe Six Pack is not going to do this, and like it or not, JSP outnumbers us. So the studios are facing lost revenue if they cannot get their products into Wal Mart. I have no doubt that the studios care about OAR; I have less doubt that they care more about profits. The motion picture industry is an art delivery business. That they put the business before the art should come as no surprise.

That said, if the studios are really interested in getting their OAR products into Wal-Mart and Best-Buy, they can use their whole lineup as leverage. Release major releases with a guaranteed audience in WS only, and offer dvd's in packages with smaller releases: we'll supply you with 1000 copies of BIG GIANT MOVIE, but only in WS, and only if you also buy a few copies ART HOUSE FILM and INDY MOVIE. If Wal-Mart really wants BIG GIANT MOVIE, and they do, they'll take the WS only and the smaller releases.

Greg

Edited to fix coding error.

 

[MartinTeller]

Forgive me for using such strong terms. I didn't mean it to sound as judgement of people who invest a lot of $$$$ in a HT system... but rather I meant it to be more in the way that Michael put it: most people will not spend that much on a TV. Only HT enthusiasts (a niche market) will. Boat enthusiasts spend their money on boats, but boat-owning is a niche market too. Maybe somewhere there's a Boating Forum with people who are frustrated because "Joe 6 Pack" is somehow screwing up their boating enjoyment.

My point is, if you want the mainstream to accept widescreen, you have to price widescreen sets in a range that the mainstream is comfortable paying for a TV. They aren't shopping for a "home theater". When 16:9 sets are a viable alternative for a family that is simply shopping for a new TV, THEN and ONLY THEN will they learn to appreciate OAR.

 

[Karl Englebright]

don't know any of my fellow members personally. I'm sure there are people with exceptionally well-paying jobs or sizable trust funds. Good for them. For the average person, however, spending that much on a television set would be irresponsible and frivolous

As other posters have pointed out, the "average" person will spend money in whatever their passtime is. If I like dirt biking, is it irresponsible for me to spend $4000 for a dirt bike? It's only irresponsible if you can't really afford to.

BTW, I paid $3,500 for my Mits 55805 with no tuner a bit over a year ago. I just saw a 55859 (HD tuner included) for $2,700 yesterday. I also saw an 43" HD-Ready set for $1,300 at Costco the other day. They are difinitely comming down in price...

 

[David Von Pein]

The whole problem would quickly go away if the P&S versions were priced higher than the widescreen versions.

I agree! And many times this IS in fact what is happening!
Amazon, for example, on A.I. .........
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...227835-1361529
vs.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...227835-1361529

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Looks like my letter in response to Video Store News' article is going into the next issue

 

[Vic_T]

It's such a shame, but they have to be right. Lucas's refusal to release the Episode 1 disc in P&S resulted in it selling so badly. Same goes for T2 and the Matrix. They must have lost their shirts on those titles.

Seriously though, give the public a coule years to get use to it and they'll accept it. It won't stop them from buying one way or the other. They're not discriminating buyers, we are.

 

[Mark-W]

Vic_T-

Not to sour your logic, but think about the demographic

for The Matrix, T2 and The Phantom Menace...and then think

about the demographic for say, The Princess Diaries or

Notting Hill.

The Matrix, T2, and The Phantom Menace are very much

guy films...and techno-geeky guys at the very core of

the fan base. Those guys more often than not want OAR.

Look at how often the Sci-Fi channel shows thing widescreen.

(Pretty much every change they get.)

Soccer moms, females over 35, and people with poor vision are the core problem for OAR acceptance.

My niece and nephews (7, 5, and 4) have ZERO issues with

OAR. In fact, my niece complained when she noticed that

The Wizard of Oz was not widescreen! (I had to

explain to her that not all films OAR are widescreen.)

Mark

 

[Keith Paynter]

If studios are reluctant to do dual angle DVD-9 titles like MGM does, they should follow Dreamworks' example of Shrek, where the full-frame release was on a separate disc with kid-friendly goodies, and the WS version was placed on its own disc with all the grown-up supplements (and DTS audio to boot). The package wasn't really that much more expensive than a regular Dreamworks title (like Chicken Run).

 

[Dwayne]

I have one simple observation. DVD is the fastest growing format ever, and it did most of it's growing with widescreen as the only option. This hasn't deterred the public from buying DVD, so why do things have to change? Do they honestly think that if they continue widescreen only, that the public at large will stop buying DVDs? That's bs and most of us know it.