**Official HTF HD Formats Ind./Retailer/Studio Support Thread-*SEE POST 3176, p. 106* (1 Viewer)

[Dave Moritz]

I completely agree with you! And this goes well beyond HDM and HT hardware. Right now the economy is on the verge and many people are nervous and are not spending money on things that they would buy otherwise. Like I mentioned I am in retail and I see less customers purchasing the more expensive refrigerators and appliances. They seem to be settling for the lower end models or putting off that purchase if they really do not have to buy it right now. So IMHO with the economy as bad as it is I feel that Blu-ray is a big sucsess taking that into consideration. So if the economy drastically improves Blu-ray sales could very well enjoy a huge increase.

 

[Robert Crawford]

If you can't tell the difference between HD DVD titles and the rest of that programming then something is definitely wrong. I am now on my third generation of equipment for HD television programming and I have a VP-50 video processor to upconvert my SD DVD collection and none of them comes close to most of my HDM collection.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

You're sitting too far away from your set to appreciate the improvements of full 1080p fidelity versus the other sources you mention. Full 1080p reveals most of its benefits between 1 and 1.5 screen-widths away. As a point of comparison, I watch my 8-foot-wide 106" screen (properly) from the same 13-foot distance that you are watching your 56" set.

Sit about seven feet from your screen and then critically evaluate the same sources and see what differences/improvements might reveal themselves.

If that's too close to sit regularly given your furniture and room, there's no sin in sitting farther away. However, you cannot also then claim to appreciate the image quality of these various sources when you're sitting almost twice the optimal distance from your screen size.

 

[Marc Colella]

This criteria of viewing distance vs. screen size doesn't bode well for HD and the mass market. The average consumer doesn't have a proper setup to achieve the best viewing. Most are at the mercy of how their living room is designed and can't position everything properly.

Most people I know sit at least 10 feet away (usually more) from their HDTV and most of them have 40" screens. Some do so because of the design of their living room, while others feel anything closer is much too close. What's the point of HD to these people if they can't tell the difference from where they're comfortably sitting?

 

[bigluigi]

No....nothings wrong. My wife and I just finished an episode of Desperate Housewives and the PQ is in every sense HD like and very satisfying. Honest....

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Agreed.

We're coming from a legacy of remembering how to sit comfortably from NTSC interlaced sets and most room decorating and significant others place restrictions on how large we can go with our displays or how we are/aren't able to move the furniture. And in a typical living room sitting 7 feet away from a set isn't realistic since it doesn't allow the general seating to flow with guests and multiple chairs. Basically, most folks just replace the NTSC set with a comparably-sized HDTV screen and view the upgrade more as a means to fascilitating room decor with a slim, wall-mounted TV versus getting a fantastic high-definition picture.

However...

watch what happens over the next 10 years. Yes, most folks will always watch too far away just like most folks watched too far away even with 16x9 anamorphic DVD. But as prices continue to fall and 1080p flat-screens get bigger and bigger... watch out. Sunday football will compell more and more husbands to talk their wives into letting them buy bigger HDTV screens and even wives will turn around and appreciate what it's about (once my friend's wife watchrd "The Queen" on Blu-ray on a projector I loaned them while I was on vacation she was hooked... that was all it took to sell her despite months of arguments against "a big screen" in their living room. Please pardon the sexism here guys but we all know what I'm talking about.

The issue with integrating HDTV into "living rooms" (unlike dedicated theaters where you can arrange seating as you wish) is that the room's seating is established for room-flow and the TV's viewing-angle is then a pure function of how large/small a display is purchased. For now, that means people sitting too far away since the 10-15 foot distance is a constant and the TV sets people are buying are generally between 30 and 50 inches. However, Sony and some other companies are working hard on flexible direct-view screens which will revolutionize HDTV watching: basically it will be a roll-up screen that needs no projector. That would mean that the "big TV screen" could instantly vanish into the ceiling when not viewed or stay mounted flat without looking like an obtrusive object in the room. And even many house-mates would be fine with a 100" LCD screen on the wall if it didn't cost more than the 42" model at Costco today. Don't laugh... in about 5-7 years it's very likely that you'll be spending about $2K to put an incredible 100" 1080p image on your living room wall... by whatever technology happens to bring it to an affordable market first. Once the Best-buy end-cap features a 100" 1080p display with a price of $2K, it will be a busy holiday season. Not too far away folks... for anyone who's been watching the evolving world of projection and direct-view HD technology over the past 10 years, it's just right around the corner.

 

[Bryan X]

HDM needs to succeed in a quicker time frame than that.

 

[RickER]

I believe that its satisfying. I enjoy watching Farscape, and the new Battlestar Galactica on my 50" Plasma, played on my Sony Blu-ray, doing the upconversion. It looks really good, but it doesnt look as good as almost any of my Blu-ray discs. To be honest, a few of my older DVDs, like Lifeforce, and Dark City, look like shit on my Plasma, but on my 36" Sony XBR in my living room i can still see a quality picture. Bigger screen, better chance to see the flaws of DVD, even upconverted, and thats a fact.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

HDM will succeed in a quicker time-frame than that. I think that even the "average" viewer won't have difficulty seeing the improvement of full HD on their 42" flat-screen from an 8-10 foot distance (I can *easily* tell the difference between SD and HD on my boyfriend's 40" Plasma and the sofa is about 10 feet away) even if sitting closer (or viewing larger) makes the HD difference more compelling. Also, the same base of DVD collectors that love 16x9 DVD today will easily appreciate the improvement of real 1080 HD even if their viewing distance doesn't allow for maximum effect, and that base of consumers is large enough to support a solid HDM format. Many serious movie collectors will even upgrade to collecting HD software in expectation of their future 1080p display or theater.

But for the broader mass market (the folks who don't know what the difference is between 16x9 and 4x3 DVD) we'll see the demand for pristine HD sources grow stronger and stronger over the next 5-7 years as 1080p displays become larger and larger and cheaper and cheaper... bringing the spectacular demand for 1080p fidelity to an even wider range of consumers.

 

[Bryan X]

*Fingers crossed*

 

[bigluigi]

David,
Thanks for your seating suggestion but our FR layout is such that to sit 7 feet from the screen would put our couch in the middle of the room...totally unacceptable. However, I do know what your talking about as I sit about the same distance from the screen in my HT room and that screen is 9' and the difference in PQ is more apparent between HD and SD dvd. Now, how many people have that kind of equipment?
Now, back to the FR. My satisfaction in appreciating the PQ of all video sources for me is not dependent upon "optimal distance" from the screen. Now, our FR is average size (16'X14') and even the 56" set looks like a 'monster' in this room. I would venture to say that most casual CE consumers buy smaller screen HD sets so unless your practically sitting directly in front of the set the advantages of a Blu-ray player when viewing HD material Vs SD DVD is not apparent from normal seating distances and largely a waste of money, you think?

 

[Jari K]

No, it´s not waste of money. I have e.g. 40" LCD and I can "see the difference".

I honestly thought that at this point in time, these "HD and SD DVD are almost equal"-talks would be just some random thoughts in the SD DVD-forum.. I guess not..

1080p resolution can´t match NTSC or PAL standard resolution. Now that´s a fact. And 1080p is just one of the first and obvious advantages with Blu-ray (well, and HD DVD too).

 

[bigluigi]

Jari...how far away do you sit from the screen?

 

[Jari K]

I honestly don´t know what to say about this. And I honestly don´t know why do you watch these HD-sources in the first place (meaning if you don´t "gain" anything from the HD-resolution - of course you can enjoy the films/TV-series), let alone spend some of your hard earned cash to HD-releases..

I know that you´ve probably issues towards Blu-ray, HD-software, HD resolution, etc etc - you have that right, but please don´t tell that "SD DVD is almost equal to HD". It just isn´t.

But hey, this is kinda refreshing. When it was "Blu-ray sucks" before, now it´s "HD sucks". Things are evolving.

(Seriously speaking - it´s very sad that we had this "format war" in the first place - we can all sense the bitterness that it has caused to the H/T community)

 

[Mark Talmadge]

I'm curious about something. The High Def thing. If Sony decided to create another Home Video format in about 7 years, what would your attitude be? Would you say enough is enough or priase Sony for the introduction of a new format?

The main problem is that if Sony and the industry keep releasing a new format every ten years, then there is absolutely no freaking way that the vast majority of movies and television shows would ever see the light of day because the studios would be so concerned over releasing all of the titles they released before and that the average consumer wouldn't get the chance to see the classics.

What the industry should do is create one format, one standard player, and upgrade the audio and video on the disk instead of feeling like they need to create an entirely new format that isn't compatible with the older format. This is what the whole problem is. With Blu Ray, I would say that when Blu Ray turns ten years old that the industry will want to create another format.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

BD is the last time we'll probably get a "physical" media that brings us 1080p.

The "next format" won't necessarily offer more detail/fidelity since 1080p can be more or less transparent for most modern film images at a 30-degree viewing angle (color depth and added resolution for 70mm images probably won't be compelling enough to warrant a whole new format by consumer demand but who knows).

What the next "format" will probably do is offer you basically the same content of Blu-ray, but via a different medium... like downloading or on-demand.

We finally got our "holy grail" home-video format with BD... an industry-wide 1080p format that can provide up to 24-bit lossless 7.1 sound. Go forth and enjoy.

 

[Jari K]

This is also true. IMO, why worry what we´ll have in 2018, when we can enjoy quality 1080p HD, lossless audio and interactive extras NOW.

If people really want to "prepare" themselves for 2018 and e.g. skip Blu-ray, it´s best to avoid all the new TVs, receivers, speakers, etc also. Computers also. And cars. All this type of technology will evolve, but I would say that 1.1/2.0 Blu-ray-player is pretty much "future proof" in a way that it can be in the 1st place.

 

[David Wilkins]

The biggest shame about the format war, is that it got everybody so wound up. It's still evident, even here, on the finest and most balanced forum, and it's reflected in threads and posts that aren't even about the format duel. I wonder how many of us have taken the time to actually enjoy the end result of the new technology.

It's still slightly expensive, but probably less so than most hobbies, in total. But the companies involved have to recoup their expenses...that's true of most any product in any industry. I have every confidence that BD will be with us for a very long time. There's no need for $100 players RIGHT NOW! Or $15 software RIGHT NOW! All of that talk still smacks of the general anxiety of the format war.

Sony and the other BD companies aren't slashing prices further right now, because they don't feel that they have too. I think they're looking at adoption rates and aren't all that displeased. The same super penetration level enjoyed by DVD, doesn't have to be met, one for one, by BD, in order for BD to be a successful format. The phenomenal success of DVD just means that DVD will be with us for a long, long time. It doesn't mean that BD will fail if it doesn't reach equal status...much less RIGHT NOW!

I think the various CE companies and studios are more than willing to accept a slower rate of progress with BD, than was the case with DVD. They don't mind a more leisurely pace, and a longer window with higher profits per unit. Of course, though, prices will fall over time, it's only natural.

All of this BS is just my opinion, though, and what do I know? I'm just ready to start enjoying movies for the sake of movies...in 1080p.

 

[Dave Scarpa]

The war did leave alot of people Bitter and Angry. I was disspointed that HD-DVD lost as I backed it never thinking, from their past record, that Sony could ever launch a successfull format. I saw indications that I was wrong and bought a PS3. I have about 30 HD-DVD disks and despite fire sales will not be adding any more. Why buy disks if in the future you might not be able to buy another Player to play them on. But I'll enjoy what I have and use my A2 for Upconverting DVDs. Now it's time to enjoy Blu Ray.

 

[FrancisP]

It's not a question of recouping development costs. Reading between the lines
maybe Sony will get dragged kicking and screaming down to $199 by the end of 2009. They clearly want to keep the prices up beyond 2009. If this happens hd will not replace SD. You can't have it both ways. If you want to keep prices higher then there is room for a value based hd format.

Another concern that I have is with bluray discs. I was reading one article about the cost of producing bluray discs. The trouble is that you have a lot of fingers in the bluray pie and they all have their hands out. To produce a bluray disc you have to pay off these hands. This works for major media companies that can absorb these costs. This also may shut out small content providers that can't absorb these costs. With ch-dvd you pay one licensing fee. Hd-vmd says they can produce a hd disc for little less than a dollar more than a sd.

As regards to hd vs sd, hd does look better than sd. However Blazing Saddles is not any funnier in hd than it is in sd. A good movie does look better in hd but it doesn't make it any better. Sometimes it can make it worse. War of the Worlds is one movie that I would dread coming on hd. They cleaned it up and the wires are embarassingly apparent in some scenes. I would hate to see these scenes in hd.