So who is sticking with SD DVD and why and for how long (1 Viewer)

[Yumbo]

You see a beautiful woman, and you think good enough.
Then you see a gorgeous woman, and you change your mind.
Will you still look at the beautiful woman? Probably, but you won't stop comparing her to the gorgeous one.
Sure the beautiful one is more accessible and easier to live with, but soon enough you will follow your feelings.

Yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and some don't use glasses, but when you have some snazzy glasses (HT setup), gorgeous is called HD.

NTSC VHS was crap to begin with (so-so girl), not PAL (nice girl).
LD was good (yummy girl), and DVD is better (beautiful).
HD is best (gorgeous).

It's all relative. Some will wait for the perfect woman, some will settle, and some will go after her.

Choose wisely.

 

[Thomas T]

It all comes down to money. When HD TVs and players are dirt cheap, I'm in. Until then I'm perfectly content with my standard DVDs. I'm mostly into classic film anyway. The fact that, say, Spiderman 2 or Pirates Of The Caribbean in HD will blow you away doesn't disguise the fact that they are crap. Beautiful looking, yes, but still crap! On the other hand, will Double Indemnity, All About Eve or La Dolce Vita "blow me away" on HD?

 

[Mike Frezon]

And as you get older it gets harder to make out which are the good looking girls until you get close enough. You then sometimes get a big surprise. Sometimes that surprise is pleasant. Other times... (Other times it's better not to have good distance vision and not get too close!)

Like the analogy, Chris! Don't know if it's original or not. But it would be easy to advance. Once you get past the aesthetics of the woman's beauty/PQ then the decisions need to be made about the inner quality of the woman's character/film content!

 

[Sami Kallio]

I can't speak of those films as I haven't seen them in HD, but if you doubt that older films do not benefit from HD as much as newer films, don't. So far everything older I have seen in HD have looked great. Grand Prix in HD, it will "blow you away".

 

[Jason Seaver]

Indeed. The HD-DVD that has impressed me the most is probably The Adventures of Robin Hood; I think a good many people overlook just how amazing classic films can look, given a chance to shine.

 

[Matt Hough]

I had no doubt in my mind that ROBIN HOOD and CASABLANCA look sensational in HD-DVD.

My question is if the studios are going to invest much money in releasing classics in HD. I suspect 99% of their efforts are going into releasing current films and perhaps catalog titles ten years old or younger. If I have a real interest in classic films, SD is going to be where the bulk of my interest gets released.

When I start reading that THE SOUND OF MUSIC, SINGIN' IN THE RAIN, A PLACE IN THE SUN, the Hitchcock films (for starters) are on the way in HD transfers, I'll be much more likely to get a HD player no matter how expensive and even if my 720p HDTV isn't going to be able to squeeze out every speck of detail from the transfers.

 

[Jace_A]

There is no HD version (Blu-Ray, actually) of POTC 2. Although I won't be upgrading many titles from SD to HD DVD, I can say as the owner of a Panasonic BD-10 and Toshiba HD-A1 that the differences between SD and HD is dramatic and very noticeable, both on my 50" Plasma and 720p front projector. Sound quality is also dramatically better. I think its fine to stay committed to SD, particularly given the uncertainties of the HD format wars. But to say there is little or negligible differences between HD and SD DVD formats is not even close to an accurate statement. A direct comparison between an SD and HD title of the same reveals huge increase in picture quality, even on smaller displays.

 

[Jason Seaver]

I am at least a little encouraged by the titles Warner has put out on HD-DVD (with BD supposedly coming later). I'd like a lot more, but we had to wait a bit when DVD came out, too.

And... Really, we shouldn't. I'd think that if a software company was actually invested in either format or the other coming out on top, they'd be getting the classics out because the folks who buy those are the people who influence other people's movie purchases. The good old stuff is one of the reasons I'm glad I purchased HD-DVD rather than Blu-Ray (which does seem to have a lot of decent/kind of nice-looking action movies in relation to other genres).

 

[Qui-Gon John]

OK, I guess this thread seems to have turned into "Why HD is better and why you should upgrade" vs. the original poster's intended topic.

Call me blind, but I still don't think HD is that much better than SD. Yes it is better, yes I can see a difference, but to me it is nominal. That, along with the fact that I am perfectly happy with the quality and convenience of SD-DVD is why I am not switching. Not until there is only 1 clear-cut successor and not until almost every title I want is no longer available in SD.

At that time, I might consider getting an HD player and buying some HD titles, but not to replace my SD setup. So it is important that we be able to play HD media in an HD player on a "regular" TV. I have a Pioneer 58" WS RPTV, inputs are composite, S-Video and component. The player must use at least one of those, or there be a convertor I can connect it with.

 

[mdnitoil]

I don't really get these kind of questions but I guess my best answer is "I'm still buying CD's." I suppose I'll continue to buy DVD's for as long as they manufacture them. If hi-def music is any indication of how much the regular guy wants better quality, it looks like I'll be buying DVD's indefinitely.

I've got to say though, I do the bulk of my viewing on a 45" rear projection standard def. DVD looks fantastic to me on that display. I read disk reviews all the time that complain about particular digital artifacts and they just don't show up on my display. I'm sure they're there, it's just not as troubling as it might be on a 100" display. Now, if I had one of these monster displays running, you can bet I'd be all over HD.

I think that many folks have very different viewing environments in mind when they answer questions like this and it's no wonder replies are all over the place.

I should also mention that, like hi-def music, I don't see the attraction of buying a piece of media that I can only play in the limited physical locations that supports it. The beauty of SD is that it's permeated everything. No matter where you take your disk, even the car, you can play it.

 

[Marvin]

In addition to waiting until one format "wins", or universal players are cheap enough, I have another reason to stick with SD: my DVD player also doubles as an SACD player. I don't want to give up SACD capability (and it would be nice if I had DVD-audio, but that's another thing) so I have to wait for a player that plays the "winning" HD format and plays SACD (there's only so much room in my A/V cabinet).

I wish they would stop coming up with so damn many incompatible formats!

 

[JeremyErwin]

I think that it's a false equivalence. CDs and DVD and Super Audio CD are up against live concerts. DVDs and HD-DVDs and Bluray are going up against cinematic reproduction.

 

[MarkHastings]

The trouble with comparing the transition from VHS->DVD and the transition from DVD->HD-DVD is (with VHS->DVD) there was not only a substantial image quality increase & better connectors to hook up with, but also digital sound that BLEW away even CD quality sound.

As far as DVD->HD-DVD, my SD-DVD player is already upconverting (beautifully I may add) to my HDTV through an HMDI cable and I can listen to DTS soudtracks that sound incredible. The image is definitely better with HD-DVD, but there were just SO many MORE advantages with VHS->DVD that it's hard to say which picture quality leap is greater.

 

[Brent M]

Thanks for teaching us all Film School 101. :rolleyes

 

[Brent M]

Well said. I agree with you 100%.

 

[MielR]

Yes, and I expect we should be seeing a HD-DVD/Blu-ray version of The Wizard of Oz soon? (as they did hi-def scans for the last SD remaster).

 

[AaronMan]

Jeremy, I don't get your last statement. "CDs and DVD (I assume you mean DVD-Audio) and Super Audio CD are up against live concerts?" What are you referring to? Aren't they re-releasing studio albums in those formats as well?

I agree with mdnitoil's analogy 100%. I can buy a CD and play it in my home stereo or car. And CDs still sound pretty damn good, especially in my car.

I think a lot of people are aware of HD's superiority, but still think SD is "pretty damn good". Maybe they think HD is "not better enough".

 

[David_B_K]

I recently upgraded my DiSH receiver/dish to the HD service. I've seen some beautriful HD films broadcast, and i would love to jump to HD technology for DVD. However, I refuse to invest a lot of money in a format (one or the other) that may go the way of DIVx. If both technologies survive, that's fine, if all studios support them. But, I'm not made of money, and cannot afford to shell out several hundred for a player and new versions of titles I already have on SD DVD.

If SD DVD was as crappy as VHS, I'd already be there. With a decent upconverting player, my SD DVD experience, while not as satisfying as its HD counterpart, does not totally suck, so I can live with it.

 

[Sam H]

I'm happy with DVDs and after becoming more busy lately watch the majority on my laptop since I don't have time to at home. HD DVD/Blu Ray are great, but I agree with the others that it's going to be a tough sell to the JoeSixPack crowd who are still replacing their VHS collections.

 

[JeremyErwin]

If you have a good CD player, and a good set of speakers, and everything is just so, it can be a pretty good simulation of reality. With video, you can see that the screen has edges. You can see that there's a restricted dynamic range. You can see that it's not 3D. And you can see the pixels.

HD-DVD solves some of those issues, but even in the best theatres, it's still distinguishable from reality in a way that an audio recording isn't.