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

[Michael TLV]

Greetings

LD/LV may never have made it mainstream ... but it did not stop studios from releasing all the major films to that format. People even had their Star Wars Special Editions for many years before they showed up on DVD.

Let's not confuse niche market with no software support. They have nothing to do with each other.

Regards

 

[RAF]

Agreed. When I mentioned "availability" of LDs I wasn't necessarily talking about availability of software, but the widespread availability of the discs themselves to the general public. Those of us who frequented Ken Cranes, or all the Camelot stores, or Tower records, etc. etc. realized that the product was out there. It just never reached the average Joe and Jane. I wish I had a dollar for each time I heard someone ask what those "silver records" were.




And another thing that probably contributed to the demise of LD was the size factor. People had gone from records to CDs (with tape as a serial access intermediary) and they weren't too thrilled going back to 12" platters. Price really wasn't the cause because, as others have pointed out, LDs were actually less expensive than VHS tapes to purchase - at least with current titles. A lot of this was tied into promoting VHS rentals over purchases when new films came out.

With the advent of HD titles size doesn't play a factor. It is a familiar, comfortable medium to everyone. Unfortunately, since HD discs are the same size as SD discs some people get confused into thinking that size is somehow equated with picture quality. Not any of the astute people reading this thread, of course. (with apologies to the Buscemi character in Desperado)

 

[Michael TLV]

Greetings

Yup ... of course in those old days, we were lucky if we could get 10% off the discs on pre-orders. 5% usually.

Just sometimes annoying to hear people who knew nothing of Laserdisc to use it as a comparison to the new products. Spouting $125 price tags for discs and proclaiming that was the norm. Of course many still thought Laserdisc as Digital ... in picture.

It was a time when VHS routinely came out at $90 on opening day and the LD was $30-$40. Only 6 months down the road when the tape went to sell through pricing did the price drop to $20-25.

Regards

 

[Bryant Trew]

I haven't bothered to jump into either format, because I simply don't have a compelling reason to do so, even at $500. Regular DVD is fine for me, and I'm not about to replace my current 350 title collection. Further, a crappy movie is still a crappy movie in HD. The first run of titles is horrible! There simply aren't many compelling reasons to upgrade now, especially when the early adopter models have so many reports of problems. If my current DVD player died, I would probably buy one, but not now.

 

[Greg_R]

1. Format War
2. Lack of a bug-free, high-end universal player (Denon DVD-5910 replacement, etc.)
3. Cost of discs (

 

[Bryant Trew]

I think manufacturers need to realise that unlike LD and VHS, DVD is already a great product. If they want us to adopt something else, then they need to make a compelling argument. Merely better picture quality simply isn't enough.

 

[Mark Booth]

Ron (Epstein),

I see in another thread that you have ordered the Toshiba. Given that you started this thread and titled it, "What is holding you back?", I ask:

"Why are you going forward?"

Surely a "winner" has not been decided. Is it simple economics (the Toshiba is cheaper)?

Updating my previous post...

We had friends over for a movie last night. They chose to watch The Majestic (one of my recent favorites). During the movie, I kept trying to look for a reason to feel that the picture quality was inadequate. Sorry, but The Majestic standard definition DVD, as displayed on my JVC HD70FH96 via the Oppo 971 player is just too darn nice to feel any serious lust for HD.

Sure, I'll get some form of high definition DVD some day. But it sure as heck won't be during the middle of the HD-DVD/BluRay mess we have right now.

Mark

 

[jonny h]

1. Wife won't let me
2. I'm waiting for say a $200-$300 player
3. I'm waiting for more titles
4. I'm waiting for the technology to settle out
5. I'm waiting for a winner in the format war

 

[Brandon.B]

Easy for me…if it aint broke, don’t fix it.

I’m perfectly happy with what I have, more than happy and there is no way I’m replacing my DVD’s for something like this. There is no reason too. Things don’t need to change so often, what I have is high definition enough for me.

 

[Qui-Gon John]

Bryant & Brandon, both good comments. I think for most of the average consumers DVD quality is great and no need to have something "better". Things don't need to change so often. It's like software companies releasing new versions of their software every year, gets old. It becomes obvious they're only doing it to get more money.

 

[Mary M S]

Addendum:
Something I did not note in my reply to the question, was that I do not feel SD broadcast or SD DVD is good enough. I am more (than a little excited) about the advent of cross media HD content.

But I agree with the above comments regarding (‘average’ consumer and close-enough good-enough) in the sense that sometimes SD is very good. And as regards non-enthusiasts,- its like the general viewing public is Dr Jeckel and Mr Hyde, I have friends/family who have an HD tuner on board capturing OTA who still don’t seem to notice when it is on or off (non primetime rerun in SD) yet perversely the men will gather up at the friends house for a sport event and relish and converse about the PQ via HD, they appear most definitely at that time to require/notice the improvement!
I think the rest of time during average viewing...it is not that most can't see it ...(don't feel early adopters have more sensitive eyeballs!) or even do not appreicate the higher quality viewing experince. It appears in their daily life they just enjoy when its there...never consciously stopping a moment to figure out why 'this' hours viewing looks great and that hr..is trash PQ.
.. just flowing with the status quo and busy with other things.

I, - have reservations about the method of transport. Lifespan, CP, Interface, ITV (gearing towards.) I don’t want to ever interact with my standalone media, just want the menus to be intuitive and the viewing of, kept a very simple ‘plug and play’ operation.

It is issues like ICT and having to backup copy to avoid macrovison for upconversion.
KISS attracts consumers in droves.

But I don’t think this current step forward, dressed as it is now, was ‘first strike’ launched with expectations that ‘regular’ consumers would or could/will adopt.

 

[ChristopherDAC]

Why go forward? From my point of view, this is easy enough to answer. The fundamental parameters of Standard Definition television were established in 1939*. The parameters for colour television were established in 1953. The engineers of those days were doing their level best with a technology which just wasn't up to the task of reproducing live subjects realistically. Much less was it capable of reproducing theatrical motion pictures in any approximation of their real quality. That the Standard Definition system is still in use today is a testament both to their work and to the efforts which have been made, over the years, to improve and adapt the system [as well as, perhaps, the apathy of the viewing public] ; nonetheless, it was generally recognised at the time as definitely not being "good enough", but rather an intermediate step in the development of technology. I can refer you to statements from the 1940s about how 1000-line television systems would need to be developed. No matter how many tweaks one applies, Standard Definition has fundamental physical limitations which keep it from providing as satisfying a viewing experience as one can get in the cinema. High Definition is the result of decades of work, much of it undertaken by the Japanese broadcasting company, NHK, and oriented toward giving the home viewer the most satisfactory possible television experience. It was NHK's researchers who first analysed and were able to put numbers on on things like the importance of surround sound and the proper channel arrangement, or the significance of widescreen presentations, and the High Definition system reflects their painstaking work. It is capable, just as it was designed to be, of providing the same level of satisfaction as the cinema. If this seems a little wordy, let me put it in short. Standard Definition was never good enough, and can never be good enough. High Definition was designed from the start to be good enough, by designers with a lively grasp of the problems of Standard Definition. It does what television is supposed to do. More importantly from the movie-lover's standpoint, it can do what film does. *I am referring here, of course, to the EIA 525 line-30 Hz system as used in North America. The BBC 405-25 system was earlier, but has fallen out of use, and was not the basis for later systems ; similarly 455-25, 809-25, and others. The CCIR 625-25 system used in Europe was based on the EIA system with only minor adaptations. This is another thing NHK discovered : almost nobody likes interactive TV. I don't think that's really changed, even now, with the proliferation of video games, and Internet computing, and so on — maybe the opposite, since those channels take over whatever appeal there was to iTV. When people want to watch TV, or a video, or whatever, they just want to put it on and watch.

 

[Qui-Gon John]

Christopher, I am not trying to give you a hard time, and I am not trying to thread-crap here, but your post seems to indicate all your reasons to go forward. Great. Except the thread is kinda supposed to be what are the reasons people are holding back, or not planning to buy into HD-DVD. I read your post twice trying to find this, but couldn't. Especially since you didn't come right out and say you already went into HD.

Mary, thing about PQ is it is both subjective and objective. I consider myself "somewhat picky" when it comes to PQ. And to me there is a great improvement in SD-DVD over VHS or even my digital cable. But yet, I rarely, if ever, seem to be able to notice things like EE. Yet color issues, (like when I calibrated my RPTV colors), are quite noticeable to me. I remember when I first got it and a lot of dark colors, black backgrounds and black people, had a purplish hue. Also alot of whie people's skin was too reddish. Bugged the crap out of me. Finally I got that all adjusted out. Yet to me, the difference between HD & SD is very minor and for my money, (and convenience and many other factors), SD-DVD is more than just good enough, I am still very happy with it. It's not like I feel, "oh I'll just stay with SD because it's good enough, even though I'd really rather have HD". No, it really is more than good enough for me.

 

[ChristopherDAC]

I explained in a previous post why I haven't gotten in yet (nothing to buy). I was responding to a question asked a few posts up, by Mark Booth. He says "Given that the title of the thread is 'What is holding you back', I have to ask 'Why are you going forward?'".

 

[Qui-Gon John]

Sorry, either missed that one or forgot I'd seen it.

 

[Brian Kidd]

For me, buying into a new format would have to entail two things:

1) Player at $200 or less. I'm a middle-class father of a toddler who adores film but just can't afford a stellar home theater.

2) Desirable titles with STUNNING transfers. Right now the selection is terrible. I've also seen HD transfers of films that run the gamut from lifelike to no better than a mediocre dvd. If I'm paying a premium, it had better be noticeable to the naked eye.

I'm going to have to wait until there's a clear winner. Right now neither format offers a substantial improvement over standard DVD. At least not enough to justify the monetary output.

 

[Steve...O]

1. Format war; for the combined price of 2 competing players I can buy tons of current DVDs that look plenty good now
2. Info overload - lots of good info on the two formats out there, but trying to separate the objective info from the biased info is tiring
3. The demos I've seen don't "wow" me
4. No HDMI on my HD set
5. My interests are predominently classic films. Don't feel the improvement in PQ would justify the costs. Plus have no desire to rebuy the many, many titles I have.

 

[Mary M S]

“PQ . is both subjective and objective Its measurable but you are absolutely right...take sound... if a set of speakers were built to theoretic ‘perfect’ specs, (by means currently achievable) it does not mean (even if they were least expensive on market) .....all consumers would purchase that model. Because of subjective tastes which cause one consumer to like ‘bright’, another ‘warm', etc. I saw “Hogans Hereo’s” on HD one day flipping channels and HD did not do it any favors..revealed the set quality to appear as if it were something on a high school stage. And I don't like TNT-HD, when they modify the ratio as they do many hours....if they are playing anything I do want to watch I'll drop to the SD TNT just to get away from the stretch. And I dont like HD-lite. But when it 'works' (for me) I love HD.

Rereading my paragraph and where it is located in comments please be aware I was not questioning anyone’s contentment with SD. The subject just reminded me, (since a head count is being taken), - to be sure & stick my hand up (from the back of the class ) to be logged as a percentile who prefer/want it.

 

[Mark Booth]

Actually, I was specifically asking Ron why he was going forward (he's ordered the Toshiba). He started this thread and expressed concerns about jumping into high definition DVD in earlier messages. Now's he's jumped in and I wonder what changed his mind.

Mark

 

[Paul A. Robinso]

1. 1080p and v1.3-HDMI (HD=player to HDTV) compatibility.
2. HD-DVD format war, a clear winner.....
3. The cost when buying prematuridly (I own a Mits WS48511)

Simply - No consumer wants to purchase a device.....twice...........