Katzenberg: HD is a Niche (1 Viewer)

[bigluigi]

Boy this strategy sounds familiar.....wait a minute. Didn't Toshiba try this approach already??? Had the average person bought into this strategy maybe the format war would still be going on. You think???

 

[Jason Seaver]

Well, to be fair, HD DVD already had the smell of death on it when Toshiba tried it. I think that Blu-ray will get into more homes as the prices come down, but I do still see it remaining something of a niche until BD players are ubiquitous as DVD players are now - not just in HT/living rooms, but bedrooms, laptops, and portables. Honestly, I don't think that's going to happen; by the time that happens, read-only SD memory will be cheap enough that stamp-sized chips that hold an HD-quality movie and plug directly into damn near every TV, stereo, computer, PDA, portable game system, etc. will be what winds up replacing DVD.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Well you may have noticed that I wrote this almost a year ago. But the players never reached that price point where people might replace their existing DVD player when it dies. I'm thinking Under $100 and most likely around $50 to $75.

Also this process of replacing existing DVD players would be a slow one as old players die. But again the price has to be at a point where it doesn't cost any more to buy a Blu-ray player than it does to buy an DVD player.

Doug

 

[chuckg]

The playing field will likely change a good bit next year, when millions of TV viewers find they need to fork over a few bucks for a converter, or get a new boobtube. (oops, no more tubes...) The price of a small TV will be not a great deal less than a larger one, so why not go widescreen? and then...oh gosh, my old DVD player must be replaced too right? "but of course" says the big box store salesdroid, with gleam in eye. Sorry, vidicon receptor.

And, just think how much money the studios will get from all the folks who don't realize they can still use those old DVDs on the new players....

We are gonna see a tidal wave of releases (I hope)

 

[Douglas Monce]

Well anyone who has cable, and thats about 80% of the U.S., won't have to upgrade their TVs. By the way all new TVs sold now must be able to receive the digital signals be they SDTVs or HDTVs. I bought a 13inch SDTV at walmart that will receive the digital signals for about $60. The 25 inch SDTVs are about $150, so HDTVs are significantly more expensive.

However I think a fair number of people will to upgrade to an HDTV as there are fewer and fewer SDTVs to choose from. I think what is going on with the TVs now will start happening with the DVD players too. You will slowly but surely start seeing less fewer DVD only players to the point where eventually you will only have a player that plays blu-ray as well is DVD.

Doug

 

[Robert Crawford]

The big difference with the current HDM scenario is that the whole industry will be behind these cheaper players with more software and marketing support that will educate the public that there is a better way to watch movies on your HT.





Crawdaddy

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Agreed.

 

[Nelson Au]

I was going to comment similarly to Douglas, but another issue here I think is that we are heading into a possible recession and money is tighter. The advantages of HDM to most people is minimal too. So it is a cost issue, as the cost of the players and software drops, then it might get more adoption.

 

[Jeff_HR]

I don't know what J6P thinks about HD & FRANKLY, I don't really care!!
HD will be a niche market to me because I have NO intention of "junking" my 1400+ Std DVDs. I will replace certain Std definition titles & I will buy certain titles new in Blu-Ray. As to the cost of buying niche products, well I am able to find a whole lot of Blu-Ray titles priced under $20 prior to shipping. That's good enough for me right now. LD pricing didn't have a maturing Internet to help suppress cost.

 

[Paul Arnette]

Damn skippy!

I also don't much care what Katzenberg thinks either. Dreamworks Animation hasn't produced a movie I deem worthy of owning yet. The closest they got was the rapidly dating Shrek. So, whatever. As long as Katzenberg doesn't somehow wind up controling Pixar, I won't be losing any sleep over his opinions.

 

[JohnPhi]

I AGREE.

I am also not going to replace anything but my absolute favorites and even some new releases will be purchased in sd I am thinking of getting no cuntry on sd because it is not an effects driven film and does warrant twice the cost..

 

[DaViD Boulet]

sigh...

Anyone can choose to buy and be happy with whatever they want. But that attitude really speaks to a lack of understanding about the art of film.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I don't know about understanding the art of film, but I do know that my BR disc of "No Country for Old Men" will look and sound better than a SD DVD of the same title.





Crawdaddy

 

[TravisR]

Exactly. Just because it's not Transformers, I think it's still worth the extra $10 for the much better presentation.

 

[JohnPhi]

What if your monthly dvd budget was like forty dollars, like mine. Would you still buy every title on bd?

Also, are you honestly trying to tell me that i can't appreciate the genius of the film if i watch it on sd? What will I lose if I cant see as many wrinkles on tomm lee jones?

If i had a bigger budget for dvd, i would buy blu, and if this were star wars, batman, or any number of my absolute favorites, I would buy it in blu.

My children really want 101 dalmations, which if i buy the bd of no country, then i won't have enough for their title. I suppose i could wait and get no cuntry later, maybe next month on bd.

There are some of you out there that are obsessive about having EVERYTHING in high def. On a nother forum, there is a thread about adding what your collection total is and what titles you own. One guy has over 700 hd dvd's and blu rays. In his list, he has now started replacing all of his hd dvd, even though he still has a player with bd. You will see some titles listed TWICE.

I find some of the attitudes on the forum to sometimes be elitist, as if no film can now be enjoyed in sd and no purchase should ever be made in sd.

 

[JohnPhi]

I understand it fine, I just can afford to pony up to every release in bd.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Whether or not one buys on any format or even not at all isn't the issue. The real issue that was being pointed out was the erroneous attitude that HD only matters for "effects films".

Films, all films, are visual media. HD matters for all films.

That doesn't mean every HT enthusiast is commanded to buy every film in HD or their love-for-film verification card will be revoked. It just means that every film will benefit from HD... with or without "effects". Every film lover should be able to shake hands on that principle.

One can be aware of this and still choose to buy any particular titles in HD, SD, or not at all based on a variety of considerations.

 

[JohnPhi]

i agree with that. I am just saying to me, this particular film, although with more detail on bd, is not woth the extra ten dollars, that I would spend on say star wars

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Which is probably indicative of you spending money on HD versions of the films you find more visually compelling. Perfectly fine. Sorry if I used your original post (the way it sounded) to make a broader point about the art of film and how it is better served by high-definition for every movie.

 

[Paul.S]

JohnPhi:

Is selling SD DVDs--titles that perhaps no longer interest you or your kids as much--to help finance BD purchases not an option?