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

[Mary_P]

I'm right there with you, Bernie. (Would you like some tea while we're waiting on the sidelines?)

I consider myself to be much more picky about quality issues than Joe Average, but even so, at present HD isn't that strong a draw for me. In part, it's the format wars. Seen enough of them to be gun-shy of getting stuck backing the wrong format, and my interest in movies and TV covers all studios -- I don't want to get one format and then find out that some of the product I want is only available in the other.

In part, it's the cost. When I upgraded from VHS to DVD, I only had to add the one component, the DVD player. If I had also had to replace a TV that I hope still has many years of life left in it, I don't know if I would have made the move, although the improvement in quality, compactness of the format, the fact that more titles than not are released in OAR ... well, all that might have swayed me.

I'm impressed by what I've seen of HD displays, but not enough to shell out the requisite $$$$ for a new player, new monitor, additional cable service, etc. to support it. At this point, I'd rather spend that money on additional SD-DVD content rather than spend it on upgrading content I already have. And I say that as a die-hard Browncoat who would dearly love to have "Serenity" on HD-DVD in my library. If that won't get me to jump into that format, I can't imagine what will.

Also, I should note here that a fair percentage of what I collect is television product, which isn't necessarily going to benefit from a higher-definition picture. The disc can only be as good as the source material, and shows that were edited on tape are going to look like it, regardless of the resolution potential of the disc format. In some cases, even the higher resolution of standard DVD can be a drawback, where you can see things in the picture that you never would have seen watching the same show as it was originally broadcast. Who knew that Emma Peel's stunt double was often a man in a wig?

 

[John Carr]

You bought up a good point Mary. My wife objects to HD due to the fact that the makeup is too obvious; she can see too many flaws!

I want it for action/adventure, explosions and spectacle so our interests are different. However, when it comes to taped and older TV shows: I can see what she means...HD picks up too many inherent media flaws. It's a problem with no easy solution.

Another problem with the big screen TVs (over 40") is room size. Our living room viewing space is only about 7 feet so we're stuck with our Panasonic CRT flat screen '32. We could run the TV the other way and pick up another 8 feet, but that means we'd lose our great front window view -- not going to happen.

For me, I'm not going to HD big screen until I convent our basement into a media rooom (about 15k), and only then after the format wars are resolved. It'll happen, but not for another 6 to 8 years...

John

 

[MarkHastings]

I have a friend who's an actor and he always says "HD is an actors worse nightmare!"

Just look at SNL, those quick wig jobs were not meant to be shown in such detail.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

But those same people LOVED music CDs, and a DVD was like a CD to them, and they liked this. It was what eventually appealed to them more than anything else. They didn't get "forced into it" because VHS was no longer made. They came 'round to the format long before VHS was obsolete or unattainable.

 

[MarkHastings]

I have a question:

It does seem like a lot of the comments (against HD-DVD) are similar to those LD lovers that opposed DVD, but I can't agree that it's exactly the same...

Those against HD (for now) aren't saying that SD-DVD is better - we're saying that the quality improvement doesn't seem worth the investment and headaches. Were these "LD lover/DVD naysayers" saying the same thing? or were they convinced that LD was actually better?

I believe they thought that LD was vastly superior and were probably seeing the LD threat (from DVD) similar to the VHS threat over Beta. They were afraid that their seemingly superior LD's were being phased out by something that wouldn't live up to LD standards.

Again, I don't view HD in this manner. I KNOW it's superior. I know it's better....I just don't think it has the same appeal that DVD did right out of the gate.

Just food for thought since the comparison is out there. I don't think it's a fair comparison to say that HD naysayers are going to be as wrong as the LD naysayers.

 

[Randy Korstick]

There is certainly no "misconception". I observed it for myself. I used to shop at a store nearly every other day at the time called "Laserland" which specialized in LDs and then started to add the new DVD format. One of my good friends worked there, and in the early days of DVD all I heard were dismissals of DVD and knocks against the new format from the workers (who were all LD owners) and all their customers. I went to a convention in 1997 and there was a panel discussion called "Will DVD replace Laserdisc?" and NOBODY on the panel had any kind things to say about the new kid on the block. I was practically the only spectator in the audience who owned a DVD player and I raised my hand and defended it where nobody else did. They were highly against the new DVD format, though it's true that eventually the LD people were first to add the DVDs to their collections.

Another thing I'll never forget... there was a free weekly (or monthly) catalogue from IMAGE that used to be given out at Laserland. I used to pick it up and read it to learn what DVD releases Image was putting out (this was when they began giving us a few bones with their SILENT RUNNING and ABBOTT & COSTELLO titles on DVD which were leased from Universal). Well, Image themselves kept pooh-poohing DVD in their editorials. I recall when THE TERMINATOR finally came to DVD (their first release, I think) they didn't give it any extras, and in the editorial the commentator snidely said things like "if you want extras, that's what laserdiscs are for". I also remember another silly remark in those early days: "Maybe eventually THE BRIDGES OF MADISON COUNTY will be available in Madison County. I don't know, I don't bet".

Joe
The miconception part was about the 3 points you made on why you didn't get into LD. As I pointed out earlier poor marketing was the biggest downfall of LD. And many believed as you did because there was no information out there for the general public to read on LD and rumors like the ones you mentioned circulated as fact but I pointed out the reality of each of those points. But I agree that what you were saying about the feeling with Laserdisc owners before DVD came out and during the 1st 4-5 months of DVD's release. I saw this pattern change with LD owners after the early pixalization problems were fixed and people saw the picture quality difference. The only downside was DVD's audio has always been thin and a bit dull compared to the powerful soundtracks on Laserdisc due to the compression needed on the DVD. This is another thing HD has fixed with more room it allows for uncompressed and lossless soundtracks which makes a big difference.
I remeber the Image and Sound and Vision Newsletters well. I received them in the mail. I remember the downplaying of DVD in those magazines which was not surprising because by then they had built up a nice LD bussiness.

 

[Randy Korstick]

Mark
I believe that most people that knew what Laserdisc was did believe it was better than VHS. The problem again with LD was poor and little marketing due to the fact that Pioneer was the only player in LD from 1981-1992 and could only invest so much in marketing. This led to a lack of knowledge with the general public of what LD really was. Many thought it was a dead format from the mid-80's on by confusing it with RCA's early 80's disc player that actually used a needle like a record player and was dead by the mid-80's. And people continued to think LD's were so expensive because the average consumer would naturally be attracted to a fancy big box set 1st if they saw LD in a store and then when they saw the $119.00 price tag of the box set they would think that was the standard price. Again poor marketing because the reality was the average new release price on LD was $34.95 and there were many places were you could get 20% off and many sales for 30% off. The average new release price on VHS was $79.95. After 1992 LD did pick up in sales but it was a little too late because the lauch of DVD killed it.

 

[Randy Korstick]

Let me just add a Happy Thanksgiving Holiday to all and thanks for keeping this thread civil.

 

[MarkHastings]

One of the reason I am civil is because I know HD is better. I wouldn't argue that. I know eventually I will switch over to HD - I'm not going to be one of those die hard SD-DVD lovers that will hang onto the format out of stubborness. My opposition is directly related to the headaches involved right now.

As much as I like the idea of improved video quality, I'm not about to support a format war. And there definitely is a part of me that would love to see this new format fail (in the wake of a newer format) due to the stubborness of the two companies at war, so hopefully they fix this issue before I completely give up on it.

I already have an HD TV set with HDMI inputs, so I really only need to buy a player (to get into HD content), but this war has soured me so much that I want nothing to do with it. Until they learn to play nice, I'm going to enjoy my SD-DVD's - Again, this is nothing like the LD supporters who opposed DVD.

I just think it's bad that the HD format is pissing off a lot of the HT ethusiasts. LD had a hard enough time convincing the average Joe to invest (even though the enthusiasts loved it), so how is HD going to get the average Joe to invest when it's finding a hard time getting a lot of the enthusiasts to invest?

I'm definitely going to sit back with the average Joe and let the HD companies know that they're going to have to do MUCH better to get my support. I know a lot of other enthusiasts are going to do the same. Hopefully they get the point before the format sours.

Again, hopefully someone is working on the next new format I'd LOVE to have a Flash Drive based system where you buy a movie on something the size of a memory stick. If they can produce them cheap enough, that may be where it's all heading. How cool will that be?

 

[Paul Miller]

I was just thinking about this, with TV skewing older and older, when was the last time an older demographic lead a technological movement of any kind in order for HD to catch on in a massive scale?



Paul

 

[Randy Korstick]

LD supporters were doubtful of DVD before it came out and when some of the 1st releases had some compression issues that fueled them but after those issues were worked out and LD supporters saw the improved detail and color on the DVD picture most of them changed to their opinion that DVD was better than LD and this only took 4-5 months for many including myself. The sound on LD as I mentioned because it was not compressed was and still is believed to be superior by LD supporters. And that is one thing that I am happy HD-DVD/Blu-Ray has restored. When you hear an uncompressed track the difference is not subtle trust me.
Those LD supporters that still oppossed DVD I believe fall into the same group as many that are oppossing HD now in this thread. They were comfortable with LD, already had large collections of LD's and didn't want to change. The LD supporters that did not change willingly were eventually forced to when they stopped releasing LD titles in 2000.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Many didn't like the idea of having to replace their collections after they'd spent hundreds and thousands of dollars on LDs already. So I believe many were in denial as to DVD's superiority in the very beginning.

As for knowing that HD is better than STD-DVD, I (admittedly) still haven't seen a sampling for myself. I won't doubt that HD is better, but I have also heard reports that sometimes it shows too much that wasn't meant to be revealed, such as seeing makeup or wigs on actors, or invisible strings, and so forth. I've heard that THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD on HD will "make your jaw drop" ... but my jaw's already still lying down on the floor from seeing the breathtaking Technicolor STD-DVD. In this particular example, the STD looks so incredible already that I really don't want (or need) any other.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Thanks. You too!

 

[JeremyErwin]

What's wrong with watching a big screen from 7 ft away? A 32 inch 16:9 screen only occupies 19 degrees of arc, which is not sufficient to resolve 1080p. (The THX recommendation is 36 degrees which is, and is supposed to be, overwhelming.) A larger screen will demonstrate the benefits of HD-DVD/Bluray/HDTV.

(Granted, I have a 27 inch HDTV viewed from the same distance. In my experience, HD seems a bit more luminous than upscaled DVD. Skintones, for instance, have more of that "healthy glow.")

 

[thepegsdave]

-

 

[Gunnar Syren]

1) Regarding the LD to DVD switch

As I remember it, the major concern was that even though DVD might be technically better, how would the studios market it? Would they go for merely barebones releases to satisfy the VHS crowd, or would they include the extras that the LD owners had grown to know and like? Also, would they go for the best sound? Remember, DTS was not part of the specification. At the time DVD was introduced, nobody knew if there were ever going to be any DTS releases.

As it turned out, the fears were mostly unfounded, but hindsight is easy...

2) Regarding S-DVD to HD-DVD

For S-DVD to be phased out, the majority of the users must have gone over to HD-DVD. The enthusiasts (that's us, folks) may not find it too hard to justify investing in new equipment, but in my opinion Joe Sixpack will not buy a new player unless his old one breaks down and a HD-player is not much more expensive than a S-DVD player - or a new player offers significant (to him, mind you) improvements.

I don't believe that HD players offer that significant improvement (in Joe Sixpack's opinion), so the question then is, what's the life span of the current player generation and will HD players be competitively priced when that life span expires?

Given the above my prediction is that no major shift towards HD players will occur in the next 5 years, and the point where studios will no longer feel that it's profitable to produce S-DVDs will not come within 10 years.

But hey, I could be dead wrong. When people said in the early 90's that pretty much everybody would have a cell phone by the year 2000, I thought they were crazy. Predicting technology breakthroughs is risky business...

 

[JeremyErwin]

Joe Sixpack needs to sit closer to his HDTV.

 

[Jeff_HR]

I beg to differ. The Betamax was NOT A STUPID format. How Sony handled its development & marketing was not in their long term best interests. :frowning: The Betamax was a quality format! What is VERY STUPID is how the backers of the two HD formats managed to get themselves into a format war like the Beta vs VHS war. I'd like to buy a HD disc format, but I'll wait for a winner (assuming there is one) before I invest $$$$ because I don't NEED a HD disc format!

 

[JeremyErwin]

IIRC, "House MD" was released in letterboxed widescreen (possibly with a 2.0 mix). Given that the show was broadcast in 720p, and anamorphism has been standard for some time, this sort of oversight suggests that producers of TV DVDs have no plans to abandon DVD for one of the HD formats anytime soon.

I was in Sears today, doing some Black Friday shopping, and I decided to look at their HD-DVD display. 480i? that can't be right. so I picked up the remote, and switched to 720p, then to 1080i. Poof-- the signal disappeared. Then I looked behind the panel and discovered that the connection wasn't hdmi, or even component. It was composite. A good solid composite signal, but composite nonetheless.

The whole reason the Japanese developed HD video was that they realized that a video that occupied more of the viewer's field of view would be much more immersive. But a large display would make the pixels stand out. I guess it's neat to have a HD display that reveals more detail if you view it from six inches away, but that's not really the point.

Until more the average consumer realizes this, DVDs will be a stronger market segment than HD-DVD/Bluray, and profit motives will keep those HD exclusive releases to a minimum.

 

[Richard_Gregory]

I have read editorial in various UK magazines recently that advise buyers to adopt a "wait and see" policy towards HD-DVD/Blu-Ray.

They cite all the arguments that have come up in this thread. However, the strongest one is that one shouldn't spend substantial amounts of money investing in a player that may well share the same fate as Betamax did. You could end up owning an expensive white elephant.

Certainly, a common sentiment was that the studios have learnt absolutely nothing from past mistakes (VHS vs DVD; SACD vs DVD-Audio; the success of DVD) and have yet again engaged in an expensive, destructive format war in which there are and can be no winners...at least, where the public is concerned.

They raised the very valid point that with rights often flipping about between studios, you could even find yourself owing a film but unable to own the sequel because it's held exclusively by a different studio that doesn't back your chosen format.

There is certainly plenty of enthusiasm for HD, but the main focus is with "which TV do I buy?".

But even this is tempered with warnings on how little HD broadcast is available (and how expensive it is to get it). Most of the reviews spend a lot of time in worrying about how well the TV will cope with SD sources...