HD-DVD players actually in homes, general consensus on picture quality is just OK (1 Viewer)

[Robert Crawford]

I don't remember any dvd players being $200.00 during the first two years of that format.




Crawdaddy

 

[TonyD]

more like $1000-1500 or more the first half year or there abouts.

 

[JediFonger]

the problem with that thinking is DVD offered a lot more benefits and convenience that people were willing to "invest in the future". HD players, on the other hand, ONLY offers better quality a/v. no one wants interactivity crap on the movies. and most people can't tell SD vs. HD, and that's why it's a diff. world than when VHS/LD and SD DVD existed.

 

[Randy Korstick]

Sorry, no offense but nothing here makes much sense.
The same interactive and special feature "crap" you are referring to with HD-DVD/BR is the same thing that made DVD different than VHS. Most VHS people did not care about DVD special features and many people still do not.
There is a far greater difference between SD and HD than there is from VHS and DVD Period! Both Visually and Scientifically. Times change and technology changes. Many didn't want to give up their Laserdiscs but we still move on. DVD will still be around for a long while just as VHS is still hanging around but the future is here why fight it. Just enjoy it.

Robert
I seem to remember Best Buy having a bare bones player on sale for Christmas "97" that was either $200 or $300. I only went as low as $200.00 just in case someone brought up the early sales. But basically this backs my point up even more. DVD players were the same price as HDDVD when it came out and look where we are now.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Randy,
I don't remember any dvd players being around the $200-300 figure until 1999. In 1997, there was a shortage of dvd players and people were on waiting lists and paying some big bucks. I was lucky, I bought my first player that same year when Home Image went out of business.





Crawdaddy

 

[Brent M]

Sorry, but I have to disagree with this statement. A well-mastered DVD looks much closer to its' HD counterpart than a VHS tape does to DVD. You can spot the difference between VHS and DVD a mile away, but in some instances the distinction might not be so clear between DVD and HD.

 

[Paul.S]

Any HTFers in Bakersfield, CA? Please PM or e-mail me tonight regarding a local A1-related favor!

 

[Paul_Scott]

watch something in HD (from a disc) for an hour and then cue up the exact same content on dvd and watch it- you will see the differences within a few seconds once the sd content starts.
a little bit here and a little bit there isn't going to do it.
going from HD back to standard definition is like suddenly going from crystal clear brilliant 20/20 vision to putting on a pair of slightly dirty glasses that you can't seem to wipe clean.

 

[Brent M]

I didn't say you're over-exaggerating and I've watched plenty of HD so I definitely know how good it can look. However, I still don't believe that the jump from DVD to HD is as dramatic as the difference from VHS to a well-mastered DVD. For example, I think it would be a lot harder to tell the difference between Episode III on DVD and in HD than it would be between Episode III on DVD and VHS. Anybody with eyeballs could pick out the difference in quality between DVD and VHS, but I'm guessing not everyone would be able to discern between DVD and HD. That's just my opinion and I know plenty of others who feel the same way.

 

[Paul_Scott]

oops.

you're too quick for an old fart like me!

 

[Travis Hedger]

Ordered my player today on Amazon, will be here Thursday with 5 movies. I will be playing on a Mitsubishi Diamond WS-65813. 9 inch guns baby! I also have 5.1 analog inputs free on my receiver so I will be able to enjoy DD+. I can't wait. Feels like Christmas is just around the corner like when I was a kid.

 

[DeeF]

I'd be interested in a detailed comparison of something like Phantom... on HD-DVD, versus the high-def broadcast image on HBO. Which is better? or are these pretty much the same?

 

[Randy Korstick]

Wow! You must be encountering alot different people than me. For years especially during the 1st few years of DVD when VHS was still strong I constantly overheard average consumers not HT Diehards say they can hardly tell the difference between VHS and DVD. This includes co-workers and family. They will admit that yeah it looks a little nicer but its not worth spending extra money on or switching formats for. It wasn't until the prices came way down and VHS was almost out the door that most of these people made the switch or were forced to switch. But I have not ran into anyone even women who don't care about HT at all that could not immediately see a huge difference in HD and SD whether it be on DVD, TV or whatever. The only exception would be Older TV shows and Movies that are broadcast in 480P on some HD channels. These do not look all that spectacular or much different than DVD and maybe that is what you are using as your reference point. But this is a poor example of what HD is all about.

 

[andy wells]

O.K... Just to make sure I understand correctly. You're saying there is a greater difference between 240 lines of resolution for vhs. vs. 480 for dvd than a jump from 480 to 1080 lines?
That would honestly beg the question, if the difference is really nothing major, why bother with HDTV at all?

 

[Brent M]

Well, to address the last part of your question first, the majority of people aren't going to bother with HDTV at all because they really don't care about the increase in quality. I'm not lumping myself in with that group, I'm just saying the most people aren't as anal about A/V quality as those of us on this forum.

As for the lines of resolution issue, in theory it sounds like the PQ difference between VHS and DVD should be less dramatic than the difference between DVD and HD, but I honestly don't think that's the case. As I said before, anyone can look at a VHS copy of a movie playing on one TV and the DVD playing on the other and see a HUGE difference, but that's not always the case between DVD and HD. Of course HD will look better(I've never said it didn't), but it's not always the night and day difference that there is between VHS and DVD(especially when you're talking about a well-mastered DVD with great PQ). Just my opinion.

 

[Ryan-G]

With all due respect,

The majority of people aren't going to bother with HDTV at all because of the price of HDTV, they admire the quality just as much as us. You can see them all consistently stop for a good look at any (Properly configured) HDTV.

The problem is that for a CRT HDTV you're looking at 600 for a 4:3 and 1000 for a 16:9 at the small end of the scale, and going to 1500 for something in the 40" range. LCDTV's are starting at 1000 for something in the 20" range, and Plasma's start at 1500.

This is beyond the tolerance range of the majority of people, when they look at those prices, they realize they can put 2-5 30" range SDTV's in their house for the same price.

Cut those prices in half, CRT's from 300-750, LCD's starting at 500, and Plasmas at 750, and watch the installed base go from less than 10% to 50%+ in under 2 years, possibly under 1 year.

American's *love* their TV's, and if you put it in the right price range, it and HD-DVD/BR will fly off the shelves in record time.

It's all about the cost of displays. The quality has already impressed the majority of the people.

 

[Randy Korstick]

Brent M
If you are not seeing night in day in HD and SD then I can only assume that your only viewing of HD has been on store displays which are almost always poorly set-up. Because the difference between DVD and HD is far more noticable then the difference in VHS and DVD just as the lines of resolution suggests.
As a HT diehard I have gone through many frustrating demos to friends & family that are not into HT to show them the difference in things like Laserdisc vs. VHS, DVD vs. Laserdisc, Dolby Digital and DTS vs. Dolby Surround only to get many responses of I can't really tell that much difference but I have not shown anyone HD that is not floored by it and cannot immediately tell the difference between HD and SD even a well mastered DVD. Again if it is a by 480P Cable show or a poorly set-up store display then I could understand your point but these are not examples of true HD.

 

[Kyle_D]

I really have to disagree. Resolution isn't the only factor in image quality. It's the reason the InFocus 4805 is considered to have a better image than the InFocus 5000, though the 5000 is a 720p projector and the 4805 is only 480p.

DVD is so much stabler, has much more consistant color and has so many fewer distracting video artifacts than VHS that, IMHO, makes it a far greater improvement over VHS than HD is over DVD. Even people I know now who didn't initially notice the difference between DVD and VHS (part of which I think is to blame on the poor mastering of some of the first DVDs) have become accustomed to DVD quality. Once they go back to seeing something on tape, they see the difference immediately and find VHS unwatchable.

I've seen a fair number of HD movies over cable on a calibrated set, and only two have ever made me say "This looks SOOOO much better than the DVD." On the others, the difference was noticable, but not earth shattering. HD Sports, on the other hand, is an entirely different story. That where I always see people who aren't video fanatics notice the difference - I've never really seen them notice it on a film.

BTW, I saw My Fair Lady in 70mm last night at Ebert's Overlooked Film Festival. You want to see something rips both HD and DVD to shreds, check out 70 mm.

 

[Brent M]

Thank you, Kyle. I was beginning to think I was the only one that thought this way.

 

[Steve Schaffer]

I've seen Last Samurai on Showtime HD and played the HD-DVD disc on my Toshiba. Detail in less active scenes is about the same but when things start moving fast the HD-DVD blows Showtime HD out of the water--no motion blur, no artifacting. I'm anxious to see some video based HD-DVD to compare to Discovery HD and HDNet.