High Definition DVD: What is Holding You Back? (1 Viewer)

[MarkHastings]

Definitely!

I paid a lot more money to get my TV with the 2 HDMI inputs instead of the cheaper one (which was still expensive) with only 1 input.

Already I use one slot for my SD-DVD player and the other will be for my new HDMI cable box, so if HD players don't play SD-DVD's, then I'd be stuck hooking my DVD player back up to component. I wouldn't like that idea, considering I just shelled out money for a new DVD player with HDMI outputs.

 

[Josh.C]

Yeah to most of the things that have already been said.

1. Just ask all those dopes who bought Sega Dreamcasts systems if they would have waited on the purchase in heinsight. Why buy into something, when you don't know which system is going to come through the war alive.

2. Need- Do I really need this new system right now? Am I unsastisfied with SD? Do I feel compelled to buy all the new equipment I need to make the transfer possible? The answer to all the above is NO.

I'm glad the technology is there, and one day when the price is right I will get involved. My argument remains that there is no reason to rush into it. Especially considering in a few years I will be able to get a much improved piece of technology for roughly half of what it is selling for now, not to mention by then, I should have a pretty good idea on which format is going to be in control.

This one is a no brainer if you ask me.

JC

 

[Randy*S]

It just BUGS the hell out me that they expect us to upgrade! I mean the early adopters out there may be able to pay $1000 for a piece of high tech junk but even $100 is a big chunk of dough for me!

And, I don't want to REBUY my entire movie collection just to have it in hd!

 

[johnADA]

Its hard to put them in order, but here goes.
Price

Format war, not such much because a format war, thats bad enough, but what says either will last with HVD. It has them both beat hands down and will be the media giant for computer users.

Rentals- I dont purchase much until its seen first and I want to see it again. Dogs or War was my last mistake.

I dont know much about Blue Ray other than just specs, but Toshiba's will play older SD and upconvert and thats and advantage if prices dont come sub $300 or so.

Lastest BB incident, I saw personally and has been posted all over. BB using Toshiba units to sell Samsungs blue Ray. That for me ruined Sony's name for good IMO, which was going down fast on some equipment that failed or was mis represented.

 

[Bradley-E]

I'm not sure which format will be the winner and I do not have the money to 'try' both or even one right now. I've spent the last 9 years building a DVD library and am really annoyned to have to start over again.

 

[Dennis Oblow]

What I want is an excellent player that can play both formats and SD DVD's. If that is available I don't care who wins, because I win. I want this HDMI fiasco worked out, so I can utilize the new lossless sound formats, this is as important to me as the HD picture. We need movies that we would like to own, at the same prices as the current media. When these criteria are met I'm in.

 

[nolesrule]

I'm not sure why anyone would be forced to upgrade their current DVD collection to DVD. It is unfathomable to me that any HD player, whether HD DVD or Blu-ray, would intentionally be unable to play DVDs (or even CDs for that matter).

Price and format war are the big hold-ups for me. I don't consider SD "good enough" for my favorite films when I have always been upgrading to better (as in A/V quality) SD DVDs for films that I love. Some of the movies I've seen in 1080i on my cable system have put my DVDs of the same movies to shame. I will only be upgrading certain films in my library that are of utmost importance to me.

HDMI is only peripherally an issue, because I'll probably be ready to upgrade my non-HDMI display by the time it really becomes necessary to do so, assuming the studios do hold of on the ICT as they said they would (and yes, I know what it means to assume ).

 

[Chris Bardon]

I'm sure many of my thoughts have been posted here already, but just thought I'd put in my two cents as to why I'm not buying right away:

First generation hardware-I bought my first DVD player in 2000, and even then you were getting players that had problems with things like jittery layer changes, and crapping out on seamless branching. Things like the upgradeable firmware that I've read about on the HDDVD players gives me some real hope here, but I'm still hesitant about spending that much money on a first run technology.

Too many formats-With DVD, it was pretty simple: a DVD was a DVD, and no matter what software I bought, I could be confident that newer hardware would still read it. Now though, I have no idea whether a format I invest in will last more than a year or two, and while replacing a $400 player to buy a better one is semi-reasonable (if you think of it as upgrading a computer), replacing all of your software is not. Had there been ONE high definition format, I might have been more inclined to buy in early, confident that at least my software investment would be safe, but with a format war, I'm waiting until a winner emerges.

 

[Mary M S]

For me lack of desire towards purchase centers on connectivity and ability to leverage complete potential. If the issue was only current price and Software title availability ...I’d already be an owner.

Historians in the forum could answer but lifespan of display V/A inputs seems more truncated with the advent of flash & downloads. I find it risky purchasing currently.

With pressures to meet ship dates and increasing complexities of the products, this trend toward feeling you are in some manner ‘future proofed’ by a theoretic chance of upgrading via software download, or partial ‘backwards’ compatibility, I feel has hurt consumers and manufactures by a far wider degree than the safety margin for future compatibility it theoretically provides.

Allowing manuf to ‘promise’ software upgrades are feasible and rush to market interfaces & software which are far buggier than in past years (not ready for primetime). The theory that they can provide a ‘fix’ is nice.
The reality IMO is the ‘hard’ box (STB, PLAYERs, DISPLAY) has on average one (fix) version issued for consumers, then support is dropped and any future are considered unsupportable due to hardwired limitations.

In my short time (4 yrs) learning to pay attention to what provides my AV, (since 2002), I have been warned (off the top of my head) no less than 4 times by enthusiast's who avow their savvy, what I need to include in purchase in order to maintain near-future compatibility.
These ‘warnings’ have a dismally short life span of usefulness or pertinence in regards to their as-launched versions actually maintaining any length of complete compatiblity to currently released and about to be released video/audio software/broadcast selections.

DigitalFirst purchase display during these 4 yrs; focus was only, that it be capable of handing (in some version onboard/offboard) a digital signal.
Firewire any of audio hardware/PC which did not include or provide an port supported by the boards to add it, - would be outdated within a yr. (I disagreed during purchase and was correct: see Firewire support being dropped)
DVI the ‘have to have’ future interface.(I disagreed that was IT, I was correct)
HDCP compliant DVI (Ditto)
During 4 yrs none of the above fully saturated market before evolving (being outdated) nor currently can net me the ability to realize the theorized full audio and video potential (new audio codexs/1080p) of HD optical discs.

HDMI first versions
HDMI 1.3 (I disagree this is IT)

HDMI is a subject all to itself...its glitchy, - it has not settled (into a final version) and I will bet you a DOLLAR that by the time HD disc’s reach a toe to on-the road market-saturation, HDMI will no longer display it full specs (if at all).
My display has HDCP compliant DVI which will accept an HDMI > DVI conversion cable between my HD STB (early generation HDMI)...It is currently non-functioning. (broke) (as are countless other HDMI interfaces in consumers hands, I read about)

Coaxial>composite>S video> component During their time, all screwed in ...that was that....they worked and you were good to go.
All video software purchased; via these interfaces, functioned: without jumping through hoops; you popped in your choice and watched. You didn’t worry about not seeing its full potential, (Downrezing) or having a range of purchases rendered non-readable by non-compliance (flagged & copy protected).

In 4 yrs my mood (and my wallet follows it) has evolved also ...from excited and forward looking...to discouraged and aggravated by the ‘issues’ of getting any of the components to work together in a semi seamless and compatible whole. It appears to me that hoping for even 12 months of full capability (use of) and fully functional finalized matured versions of interconnection between AV hardware and software ‘on shelves’ has become too much to ask.
Have already seen two “acronym’s (I can’t keep track) of possible future interfaces on PC’s to replace USB, and two on displays, (replacing HDMI.) In 4 yrs I have learned that if I even see a “whisper of” ...on the horizon, odds are it will (or something not yet even mentioned) very quickly become next yrs HT forum talked about must-have.
The problem being (as I sit) that interface and copy protections are being theorized, provided and then dropped....with increasing speed, before they are finalized or reach cross-market standards and saturation.
With the advent of providers wanting a piece of the looming “interactive” pie, and HTPC...it is only going to get worse for a long while yet.

TV 2.0 is not going well, and 3.0 is in the wings.
Other than the above....I’d rush right out and buy it today.

 

[MarkHastings]

Mary, just to add to your post:

My brother (as recommended by myself) purchased an HDTV - It was the Sharp AQUOS. I kept telling him how great the set was (from what I had heard and seen).

He loved the TV (and HD programming) and he ran out to get Comcasts DVR service. The box didn't come with HDMI outputs and he went through hoops to get one that finally did have HDMI outs. Well, that wasn't the worst of it...

After finally getting things hooked up, he started noticing that the HD channels were all off center. After taking time off to have Comcast switch boxes and do all of their tests, he finally called Sharp.

They told him that there was issues with the HDMI inputs on those sets and he would be put on a list for an HDMI Firmware upgrade.

That was a few months ago and still no word. Talk about disappointment. :frowning:

 

[Paul McElligott]

Then don't.

The HD players are backwards compatible and upscale your existing DVDs.

 

[FeisalK]

A reason to wait?

 

[Dave Moritz]

While a universal player may or may not be bad for ether HD fromat. I believe that there are arguments for and against dual format players. Unless a really good company steps foward soon and offers a dual format player I dont see myself buying one. I would not purchase a Samsung or LG dual format player. I would seriously consider a Sony, Pioneer, Yamaha, Panasonic and Denon.

Right now the only things holding me back from Blu-ray is the fact that the Sony player was pushed back again. I dont want the Samsung! And the fact that I still need to save up the cash to buy the player. I am getting tired of waiting on Sony and am considering HD-DVD but that would take money away from the Blu-ray player. My problem is I dont make alot of money so its a big deal investing in HD.

Also I can't say I am crazy about the MPEG2 discs that Sony put out for Blu-ray ether.

 

[rich_d]

Robert, let's not get cute with words like "paraphrasing" and "distorted." I flat out quoted you. And not cutsie little snippets either.

You called it an HD/SD Hybrid and that's what I called it too. I never mentioned HD / Blu-ray combos so I have no idea why you're bringing that up.

Again, I think your logic breaks down. If you are suggesting that people spend money on HD/SD Hybrids then you are asking people to commit money to the HD format ... plain and simple. That people should spend what you believe to be $10 more for SD "insurance" is just illogical. Why would someone need a SD disc if they already have a HD disc? Why would they want to pay 10 bucks more for a SD disc? Does a HD disc expire after a few years?

If someone wants a SD disc at some point they can purchase it at that point. Meanwhile the dollars stay in the consumer's pocket and not the studios.

Are you sure you're not a studio representative?

 

[ChristopherDAC]

Again, I think it's highly misleading to term LaserDisc "a failure of a format". So it didn't attain massive market penetration in homes in the United States? Fine. It did in Japan ; and it did attain almost universal market penetration in the educational and industrial markets in America ; and it stayed on the market for nearly 25 years, accumulating at least 40 000 sell-though consumer releases ; and it supported High Definition, in both uncompressed [studio] and compressed [home delivery] formats, beginning in the late 1980s ; and it made itself indispenable for TV and film editing, as an integral part of the first non-linear editing systems ; and it introduced high picture quality, video bonus features, chapter marking, stereo, multiple audio programmes, digital audio, and discrete surround sound to the home video marketplace.

Leaving aside the fact that it was the first reflective optical disc format, and you wouldn't have so much as CDs, much less CD-ROM, CD-R, CD-RW, DVD, DVD-R, DVD-RW, DVD-RAM, DVD+R, DVD+RW, HD DVD, BD, or even Sega's proprietary optical-disc format as used on the Dreamcast, is it really fair to call that "a failure of a format"?

 

[Lew Crippen]

deleted

 

[RAF]

rich_d,

I completely disagree with your continual misrepresenting of what I was saying in my previous posts and I have to conclude at this point that you are either misinterpreting what I'm trying to say or are just being confrontational for some other reason. I re-read my original comments and in no way can come to the conclusions you reached based on what I wrote.

And apparently others here also are able to understand the points I was making without resorting to attacking me personally with snide comments. I really don't appreciate terminology like "try to write" and "let's not get cute." They are condescending and typical of the type of confrontations that are allowed to exist on other forums. I've made my points here and others are apparently able to comprehend what I was saying without putting their own personal spin on my writing. Your responses are totally illogical and not based on anything I actually wrote but on your interpretation of what I wrote. Please don't put words into my mouth.

I tried to respond to your remarks in a civil fashion by pointing out where there seemed to be a lack of communication between us and you turned around and continued your diatribe with additional distortions of what was written. And, even though your last remark was accompanied by a "smiley" I don't appreciate being called a "studio representative." Adding a happy face to a slanderous statement doesn't make it o.k. in light of your previous responses to me. There is a great difference between participating in a tongue-in-cheek thread where a lot of stuff is said in jest (I do it all the time) and posting in a more serious thread like this one where such an aside is totally out of place.

And I appreciate the responses by those here who understood the points I was trying to make and who came to my defense when you skewed my remarks. Obviously my writing was not too hard for most readers to comprehend.

I refuse to continue a dialogue that is going nowhere but clogging up this thread and veering it off course. As far as I'm concerned this matter is closed. I apologize to the membership for taking up bandwidth here in an otherwise fairly civil discussion regarding a somewhat volatile subject (HD media). Remember, people, here at the HTF we ask you to leave your attitude at the door or you will be shown it (the door). We try to maintain a level of discussion based on attacking the issues rather than attacking other members.

Let's get back to the question at hand....

 

[MarkHastings]

I can't agree that LD paved the way for all of those formats, but I will agree that it's unfair to call it a failure.

If anything, LD was more of a failure in the 'consumer' market. Kind of like Betamax; Beta never really made it to the consumers homes, but beta is HARDLY a failure at all. It's pretty much been industry standard for YEARS!

 

[Cees Alons]

The thread originator (Ron Epstein) asked what was holding people back to step into the HD realm NOW, and several members replied to that.

Unfortunately, then some started to argue (as if someone would change his/her opinion because someone else said so). And even people who hardly replied themselves to the question asked, got into arguments with people who did.

I hold the people who responded to such challenges in the highest regard, but really, you don't have to defend your opinion here.

And I urge everyone not to try to argue with others about their opinions as posted here. We consider that thread-crapping.
Please refrain from it from now on, or you're no longer welcome in this thread, it was really meant differently.

Thanks for understanding.

 

[RAF]

Good points, Mark.

As a somewhat major LD backer over the years (1900+ LD titles in my collection) I would suggest that the "failure" of LDs was its inability to penetrate the video market for a number of reasons including cost, convenience and availability. As good as LD was for the time, it most certainly was a niche market.

Let's not forget that one thing that LDs did do for the video market (besides making the resolution of video move beyond the 400 lines range which was a big step up from VHS and broadcast video at the time) was to introduce a random access format which was the forerunner of DVDs. (I still chuckle when I remember seeing "don't forget to rewind" stickers on some early DVD rental cases). While LDs lacked a true menu system such as DVDs offer, most players were able to jump to specific chapters on this discs (side flipping notwithstanding). So LDs play an important, if not mainstream, part of the history of video. Going from 240 lines (VHS) to 400 lines (LD) was a significant step up in PQ. Going from 480 lines (DVD) to 1080i/720p (HD media) is another significant leap forward in that area.

If LD is a "failure" it's only in the commercial market as you stated, not in the advance of video technology.