Anyone else afraid studios will abandon regular DVD in favor of HD? (1 Viewer)

[Randy Korstick]

Question for all the doubters.
Lets say in 3 years that the HD act is enforced the way it is supposed to and the majority of TV is broadcast in HD by then and all that is available to purchase are HDTV's and there are HDTV's available for $300-$400.00. So when people upgrade their tv's in 3-4-5 or 6 years or whenever they upgrade to the new TV do you think all these people with new HDTV's are going to say give me Standard DVD on my HDTV because its good enough or are they going to say give me an HD-DVD at the same price so I can see what my HDTV can really do. And all the above is already in the process of occuring.

This is the point about HD that is trying to be made and why 3-4 years is being said for this to happen. Technology changes and never stays the same. How many dead formats have been mentioned by many in this thread already.

HD-DVD is nothing like Laserdisc and the comparison doesn't hold water. Laserdisc was not available in Target, and rarely in Best Buy and Circuit City which made in niche. Many people didn't know what it was. People know what HD is and its in mainstream stores available for anyone to look at and works on the new established TV format. There was no new TV format for Laserdisc.
And by the way I do not have disposable income I am in the middle income bracket. We buy what we like, others make take an expensive vacation every year or own an RV or Boat but that does not necessarily make them rich either.

 

[MarkHastings]

I know this is where my doubt is coming from. Yes, IF it becomes mandatory, then I will agree with you about HD-DVD becoming standard, BUT will HD be enforced in 3 years? Will they be able to get HD signals to every home in America? I have my doubts about that.

 

[Randy Korstick]

Joe
The same people that did not care that DVD's picture was better also did not care that much about the size or not having to rewind it. VHS was good enough for the average consumer. The majority of DVD buyers for the 1st couple years were Laserdisc owners who liked it because it offered the same things they were getting on Laserdisc: extra features, widescreen, Commentaries but at a lower price and with better picture. The average consumer didn't care about these things. When DVD became the major format around 2001 it was becasuse the average consumer was forced into because stores were phasing out VHS, titles went out of print and selections became smaller and smaller and at the same time DVD players became very cheap so people switched. I know many family members that followed this same pattern. This is the way technology changes: LP's, 8-Traks, Cassette Tapes, VHS. This is the same Road HD is on and will take at least the same time frame as DVD did.

 

[Randy Korstick]

It has been talked about for at least 10 years and delayed at least a couple of times but a year or so ago it was passed as a bill to complete the upgrade sometime in 2008, I forgot the exact month. So not as much reason to doubt now. It could be delayed again but it will happen.

 

[Carlos Garcia]

I can only speak for myself. I currently own a Sony 30" HDTV, and I have about 3,000 S-DVDs. The only thing I watch in HD is whatever our cable company offers through the basic channels in HD. The quality is not good enough (sure it's sharp, but the picture is loaded with artifacts which show up everytime something fast happens on screen...Heck a well produced S-DVD can sometimes look better!) to convince me that I want an HD-DVD/BluRay DVD player. When we're finally forced to switch over to HD because they'll no longer make S-DVDs or S-TVs, I will gladly buy an affordable HD-DVD/BluRay (whichever wins) player, ONLY because I know the high-def units are backwards compatible with my S-DVDs and will play on the HD models. Double dipping for very minimal improvement is a waste of money, and with as many discs as I already have, I'd go broke if I were to switch over! Now if they were ever to introduce a trade-in program where we can trade in our S-DVDs for the same HD versions, then give me a call. LOL!

 

[MarkHastings]

But what about these 'converter' boxes? This will allow consumers to use their old equipment even though the standard will be HD. So the question now is, if this is true, in 2008, will SD-DVD still be around? At what point will SD-DVD start to be phased out?

I think SD-DVD will still be prevelant in 2008 and that's when this "3 year" time period (for consumers to jump in) will begin...(i.e. once HD has become the standard).

 

[Randy Korstick]

Just as VHS is still hanging around in some form I expect DVD to be around in some form for about 10 years too, I just don't think it will be the Major Format in another 3-4 years.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

I saw this pattern with vinyl switching over to CD (forcing people to go CD), but not with DVD. Mainstream consumers seemed taken with DVD in and of itself, and the format was very consumer friendly. With all those formats you listed above, each one of them was quite different physically, as well as the way they function. With SD-DVD and HD-DVD, it's really (to the average consumer) just the same exact thing with the same functionality; all that's different is the quality is a tad better and the price of the new discs higher.

After all is said and done, as I said, I believe HD-DVD will only replace SD-DVD if the studios abandon SD-DVD and don't make it anymore, giving consumers no choice but to buy the replacement. It's not going to happen on its own, and especially not as long as the HD discs are higher priced.

You asked about the "HD television" scenario. I guess whenever the time comes for me to buy a new TV, it'll certainly be HD. But I'm hearing that the SD-DVDs look good on them as well. If I have to buy some sort of "converter", it would be far cheaper than replacing a couple thousand DVDs to HD-DVDs, and then changing over again once the inevitable next format arrives in 2015.

 

[Richard_Gregory]

...will not happen. Talk to an Average Joe Buyer about HD. They will see that in return for buying a new TV, a new DVD player, they will get a (comparative) handful of discs whose only advantage over DVD is that they have a better picture.

You can rave all you want about the wonders of the image. Joe's eyes will just glaze over.

Just like they used to when I talked the people who switched from VHS to DVD. They did it because their VHS recorder blew up, or because they liked having their movies on "compact discs". I always mentioned the much better image and sound and usually got either a blank look or got told they'd never noticed that much.

It's astounding - look at Joe's TV and you will often find a rubbish image because the TV is badly tuned in, with a badly installed aerial, uses the worst possible connections...and so on.

And - Joe doesn't care!

 

[Jeff Willis]

Richard, Joe,

Great posts. Says a lot about how I vew this HD issue. Like many here, my S-DVD library is large. I'll get the HD TV when they're more widespread and come down in price as they inevitably will. As for the HD/BLU-Ray war, I'd guess that 90% in the HTF Forums would wait the war out until there is a clear winner. I'm more interested in program content and availability so I'm in no hurry to invest in HD DVD's. I wonder how long it will take to see virtually all S-DVD films & TV/DVD's available in HD? I was an LD buyer, but I only had a limited library of the LD's before the format faded away. I was a relatively early S-DVD investor for the same reasons as you guys mentioned in your posts. I figured that it was a sure-thing format success. The only complaint that I have is the TV/DVD programming isn't getting released fast enough for me, but we can all say that on this forum, right?

As for the "Joe" comparisons, I rate myself between "Joe" and
"John Doe" (the HD & BLU-RAY buyer). Xfr quality is important to me and I usually pass on a TV/DVD set that gets bad xfr reviews. Picture quality is important to me but I have to strike a balance between that and the amount of $$'s that I'd need to spend on equipment upgrades and programming, be it Satt/Cable, or HD-DVD's. Another reason that I don't have HD equipment, is that I don't want to get "hooked" on an HD picture when all of my home DVD library is S-DVD. That probably sounds crazy, but that is one of my reasons for staying away from HD at present. I do watch a large amount of live sports on Satt., but zero current network series. I watch some of the 60-'s - 80's series and films on the "Encore", etc channels but the remainder of my viewing time is watching my S-DVD''s.

 

[Randy Korstick]

I see alot of common misconceptions about Laserdisc here. 1st I agree there were quite a few LD owners that resented DVD at release but I saw this change after 4-5 months of release and LD owners were the majority of DVD buyers in the 1st year which is why Pioneers 1st DVD player was a combo LD/DVD. This doesn't change that most common buyers were like Joepepe and all they really wanted to do is see the movie and VHS was good enough and they didn't want to buy a new machine and learn how to maneuver menus when with a VCR you just pop it in and play. VHS was good enough for the mainstream they were forced into DVD by lack of VHS availability and low DVD prices made the change easier. I heard this from family members, friends, overheard it in stores and read it in many Video Magazines. I agree with an earlier comment that it does sound like with the attitude of many here we would have been stuck with VHS. Comments like the movie is all that matters and we used to watch snowy rabbit ear pictures and enjoy it kind of lead one to believe this is the feeling here. True the movie is #1 but a movie fan or buff wants to view their favorite movies in the best possible way. Which is why upgrading occurs and is always sucessful for the studios. We had multiple versions of the same film on VHS, Laserdisc, DVD and it will continue on HD-DVD/Blu-Ray. People who care about the movie also care about the quality and thats one reason HD-DVD will suceed and another one is the one already pointed out that when only HD-TV's are available to buy in the near future then people will want HD material to play on them.
Now onto Laserdisc. 1st Laserdisc was around from 1978-2000 thats 22 years I would call that a long time for a format, if DVD lasts that long it will be very happy. 2nd by 1991 all laserdisc players auto-flipped which took about 15 seconds, dual layer DVD's until the more recent players took about 2 seconds to change so not much of a difference and a moot point. 3rd the average new release on Laserdisc was $34.95 some were cheaper and some higher but the Average new release on VHS was $79.95. The media for Laserdisc was always cheaper than VHS. You had to wait over a year for a new release to drop in price on VHS and many catalog films never did or took many many years to drop. Hardware was more with VCR becoming less than $100.00 while LD players only reached the $399.99 mark.

 

[Randy Korstick]

But these "issues" were very rare - I was a very early DVD adopter and I never experienced these problems. Moreover, you've said yourself that the average DVD buyer didn't really care about image quality. VHS was good enough - a bit of blockiness wouldn't matter either.

Thats not the point a statement was made that DVD had no problems out of the gate. These problems did occur and were later fixed. I've never experienced a problem with a Double-Sided DVD but many do and hate the format when they have a problem so the fact that these problems did occur was significant to many. The problems HD-DVD and Blu-Ray have had are similar and most have already been fixed.

 

[MarkHastings]

I think the one thing that a lot of us are hesitant about (with concerns over HD) is that while LD had a good run, it died before VHS did. That would be my big concern with HD - I have this fear that it will be replaced long before SD-DVD dies out.

I think that's also the concern with others here as well. It's the old "learn from history" theory. HD-DVD has already started digging an early grave for itself before it even hit the ground running (i.e. delays, wars, etc.) - New technology comes out faster and faster each year and HD-DVD doesn't have a lot of time to work out these issues before something else takes over.

I think that's where a lot of this concern is coming from. The comments like "SD-DVD is good enough" - well, they are probably more to the fact that people are very comfortable with SD-DVD right now. It's got a solid footing in the market place. The quality is 'good enough' to not have to deal with the $$ and headaches involved with switching over at the moment.

The switch from VHS to DVD was a MUCH MUCH easier switch than the switch to HD-DVD. All of this talk about it being mandatory, well, I guess that would be the only way you'd get the majority of consumers to buy into HD. If not for the mandate, the HD-DVD popularity will take a long time to transition over to the average Joe.

Mandatory HD aside, I know for me, I'll be waiting a few years before jumping into an HD player. And like I said, if the majority of people here are finding it difficult to jump right in, how is the average Joe going to jump right in?

Like you said, the only way it'll happen is if SD-DVD is abandoned and HD-DVD becomes mandatory - well, that's obvious, but given the choice, I think HD is going to have a tough battle ahead of itself.

 

[Richard_Gregory]

Except it isn't. No format was ever carried by the relatively small number of people who care enough about image and sound quality to make an investment in order to obtain it. There are plenty of examples of superior formats which have failed, or lost the battle to a competing inferior one that's been better marketed.

To gain the mass market, there has to be something more to appeal to the casual buyer.

You need to have a good reason for the casual buyer to jump ship - this can be done in two ways. You can either attract them to the new format, or you can do something to push them off the old one.

 

[Carlos Garcia]

Another thing everyone seems to forget is that unlike LD, a regular DVD will play in an HD-DVD/BluRay player. S-DVD being digital, will never go away the way VHS and LD did...S-DVD can actually be stored and edited in our computers. Therefore, no one should ever think the format will ever really be dead. When the day comes that they no longer make S-DVD players and we have to buy whatever replaced it (whether HD-DVD or BluRay), it won't affect our collection of S-DVDs at all. In other words, people with large S-DVD collections don't need to worry the same way VHS and LD owners feared when DVD came out...They could no longer play the formats they owned on S-DVD players, but S-DVD discs WILL play on either of the new HD format players we'll all eventually have to upgrade to.

 

[Jeff Willis]

Carlos, you "aced" it with this post That's a big point about S-DVD's being playable on the HD players. As long as that's the case, I might get an HD player a little earlier than I'd originally thought. I am one, though, that will wait out the format war and see which side remains standing.

You guys are posting some awesome posts on this thread. Can someone say "CNN's Crossfire"?

 

[MarkHastings]

LOL

Yeah Carlos, that is a very good point, but I will have to side with Randy and say that just because you can play the format, doesn't necessarily mean the studios will continue to produce it. Your theory is more to the fact that SD-DVD will be around for a while (i.e. people still playing SD discs), but I think Randy's idea of a "dead format" has more to do with studio production than people still using the discs.

I'm sure your point (i.e. SD playing in HD decks) will help ensure a little more longevity out of SD-DVD (i.e. the studios may produce SD for several more years), but I have to imagine that once people invest in HD technology, they would rather buy HD versions over SD versions, so it might not be a solid argument.

Actually, I would argue that SD support is more of an asset to the HD foothold. More people will buy into it, knowing that their DVD collections are still useful, as opposed to having several machines hooked up to support LD and VHS.

 

[Randy Korstick]

Good points Mark and Carlos and I agree the best thing about all this is that you can still play your old DVD's if you do buy a new player you won't have to keep an old one around to play your DVD collection like you had to do with LD and VHS.

 

[Randy Korstick]

I was referring to Media not Hardware. VHS, LD and DVD have all had films released multiple times and all sucessfully because fans of the film are always looking for a better version of the film and this carries over to justification for moving to HD.

 

[BernieV]

Another thing that may delay consumer migration to H-DVD is the absence/cost of recorders. I think that's the main reason VHS survived into the DVD era. VHS affords the consumer an easy way to record off the air on cheap, reusable cassettes. Standalone DVD recorders are more expensive than VCRs, and RW media have compatibility issues. If the cost of H-DVD media is anywhere near that of dual-layer S-DVD, that could factor into the next gen equation as well.

I was an avid LD collector in the early 90s, but I found it easy to make the switch to DVD. There was no additional hardware requirement except for the players, and they soon became affordable. I made it a rule not to double-dip, and I still give laserdiscs a lot of playtime. With two working players, I don't foresee losing that capability in the near future.

My urge to upgrade to HD isn't very strong. My SD video equipment still has years of life left and seems wholly adequate for my library. I have most titles that I want and will probably pass on most future releases, be they SD or HD. Higher definition is nice, but it will never surpass the experience of watching a movie on the big screen [classic and revival cinemas, not 'plexes].

Sometimes I get the feeling of being herded into the HD corral to be branded for the next big thing. Electronics manufacturers, networks and studios all want to make my current HT setup obsolete. HD zealots seem bent on winning new converts [to justify their own expenditures?] I think I'll sit on the sidelines for a while yet.