Blu-ray & HD-DVD already failed formats?

[SatStorm]

@CrayonEater: Storage is an issue. The safety of the data is also another! I just don't feel safe with the optical media in general and I'm not along on this...

I believe the next big hit, gonna be a form of media with huge capacity and great and prooved safety. All other forms, gonna be something for the minority of the technology enthusiasts.

Blu-Ray/HD DVD are both too limited, controlled and easy to get damaged. They may offer storage and HDTV support, but in a compressed form we can use today DL DVDs for the same material with not huge issues. The safety of the data on the discs is about the same. So, which are the benefits of the new media? Greater capacity? Along , this is not that great...

[dvd3500]

Go to any store in the US and you will see tons of composite/analog to RF modulator converters so people an hook up DVD players using the antennae connections.
Why would people fork out this much more for use on substandard equipment?

[ntscuser]

Go to any store in the US and you will see tons of composite/analog to RF modulator converters so people an hook up DVD players using the antennae connections.
Why would people fork out this much more for use on substandard equipment?

As I posted above, 90% of people can't tell the difference between VHS and a live broadcast so the difference between anamorphic, component color and RF modulated composite video will be largely lost on them. I know someone with a HD-capable front projector who bought laserdisc and later, DVD purely for its multi-channel audio capability. He has yet to show any interest in HD broadcasts or recordings.

[DJRumpy]

It's interesting looking back a few months at the comments here. Blu-Ray now supports MP4. The storage capactiy was doubled and the second side of the disk hasn't even been scratched so to speak. I also found the comment about the Playstation a bit odd. Stating that something as 'trivial' as a playstation not having any effect on the market is rather shortsighted. I myself intend to buy a playstation for $400 just for the blu-ray. The fact that it's a game console is just a bonus. Multiply that by the millions that will purchase one...

Look at the iPod and what it has done for MP4 encoding. The video's are all over the net.

I was also confused by the 480P / 1080i statement. To say 1080i doesn't look impressive compared to 480p is a bit laughable. Has this person ever seen a true 1080i recorded format? It practically leaps out of the screen. Talk about 3-d. Perhaps he just has a crappy HDTV

I am a bit confused as to what else you would want except for increased capacity? I hear people slamming it saying it offers nothing new? What else is there? I do see potential for an increase in the number of audio channels and in that area in general since space won't be such a premium. Take these DVD's that are encoded specifically for quality, sans any bonus material. Extra capacity removes this restriction, allowing both. In the end, it all simply comes down to capacity. More = More Content.

I do have to agree with the media statement albeit not exactly about the news media, but rather the broadcasting companies. They make HDTV look terrible with their upsampled broadcasts and Analog-To-Digital Conversion hack jobs. Tune to INHD and that local news channel like something from the 1950's. They should be forced to label them for the uninitiated so they don't think they are looking at true HD. I just sold my old HDTV (how funny is that?). The first guy who bought it, brought it back. He said it looked terrible. He was hooking it up to his SD satellite box with composite cables.

It is our job to educate, but calling something a failure before it's out the gate is foolish. Slamming it as so 15 minutes ago when there is nothing comparable on the market is also foolish. I do think HD-DVD is a mistake. A cop out to save cash and gain acceptance on a technology that isn't all that new under the covers. It offers nothing but slightly more space (not much more than a dual layer double-sided dvd) with a newer codec. Not a real advance. Blu-Ray however, offers some great potential. 50 GB isn't even close to it's future storage capacity.

Last but not least, 1080P is not in the HDTV standard. That is something videophiles are clamoring for (hell, what can I say, I own a 60" progressive Sony display). They should have included it, knowing how people felt about interlaced signals, but then again, Progressive scan DVD players came about quite a while after DVD was released. Why did it show up? People like us. Not because we trashed DVD as a format and demanded a better VHS, but rather because we saw the potential in DVD and demanded more.

Give it a chance. I know I will.

[edDV]

I think most of the complaints summarize to the tightness of DRM not only for "copying" but for legitimate needs to load content on to a non-proprietary home server or HTPC. Sony wants it all to come from their $-proprietary-$ BD DVD hardware juke boxes loaded with plastic discs.

That is 40's technology if you think long about it. Back then the mafia enforced pay for play on those juke boxes and also influenced what records get played flavoring their clients like Frank Sinatra. Sony understands this model well.

Last but not least, 1080P is not in the HDTV standard. That is something videophiles are clamoring for (hell, what can I say, I own a 60" progressive Sony display). They should have included it, knowing how people felt about interlaced signals, but then again, Progressive scan DVD players came about quite a while after DVD was released. Why did it show up? People like us. Not because we trashed DVD as a format and demanded a better VHS, but rather because we saw the potential in DVD and demanded more.

Give it a chance. I know I will.

First, HD and BD DVD movies are native 1080p.

Second, 1920x1080p/24 is in the ATSC DTV required standard format list so if you want to start an all 1080p UHF station there is nothing stopping you. Just expect a lot of complaints that early DTV tuners won't deal with 1080p/24 correctly. There are many economic reasons why the big guys won't do 1080p so you have your niche opportunity.

Third, progressive DVD was always there as a quality option. The problem was getting a progressive TV set until recently. The perceived step from NTSC to 480p DVD (assuming a quality progressive display) is larger IMO than 480p to 1080p.

I'm glad that after the analog shutdown, 480i/480p will be the new floor.

[DJRumpy]

I agree about the DRM. They will continue to complain until it, like every other protection scheme before it, is cracked. Then the hate will turn to love It is far more restrictive than any other before it. The movie industry will never learn. They made record profits this year regardless of the so called losses to piracy.

As to the progressive DVD, you are stating nothing different than I am. The option wasn't there to utilize it until months after DVD's were released on the market.

[TVM2K4]

I've been just sitting back and keeping an eye on the 2 formats and not really making a decision on either. Even though Sony's POS3 will be around the price of a HD-DVD player I wouldn't buy one simply for the fact that Sony isn't anything near what they used to be. It'll be interesting to see what happens in the coming years as it concerns these newer technologies and I agree with the people that said neither HD nor BD will be it. I could be wrong though but one things for sure, only time will tell and it really hasn't even begun to tell us anything yet.

[Nilfennasion]

While I would argue that sizes relative to hard drives is not that important, it does highlight one of the problems with DVD-Video that the consortium seems determined to ignore. Specifically, the size was agreed upon without the slightest consideration for the fact that when it comes to running time, the consumers generally want at least three hours. Sure, a ninety-minute film looks wonderful on a 7.9-gig disc even with DTS and multiple audio commentaries, but three hour films have had major problems.

That article has a few points that fail to make sense, but it also hits the nail on the head on a few occasions. The most obvious of which being that format wars condemn its participants to death. Before DVD-Video was rolled out, a similar format war had loomed with one camp advocating a standard known as something like MMCD. Fortunately, manufacturers (and more importantly, film studios) told them to sit down and agree to a unified standard.

To call 720P or 1080I underwhelming is so off-base I do not even know where to begin. Either format has its selling points. Progressive video would change the world as we know it, simply because we would no longer be seeing jagged diagonals and flickery lines in broadcasts of our sports events. 1080I's main selling point is twice as many dots, but these hypersensitive eyes still see the flicker. 1080P would rock my socks off, but very few television sets in the world can scan that high. Either way, to call these uncompelling is idiocy. My mother has a friend whose daughter is legally blind from having cataracts removed in the 1970s, and she can tell the difference.

Last, but by no means least, this author underestimates by a long shot what an impact the PlayStation 2 had on the DVD-Video market. Before the PS2 came along, DVD-Video was a snob market where participants turned their noses up at individuals who wanted to pay less than $600 US for a DVD player, never mind what they wanted to pay for audio gear. The PlayStation 2 was specifically designed to offer a path of entry into DVD-Video without breaking the bank (unless one was an early adopter, of course). Something to get Joe Beerfart on-side, a marketing necessity that everyone from Toshiba to Denon had failed to deliver at the time. Six months after the PS2 was out, DVD-Video was literally everywhere. Even Toys-R-Us briefly experimented with stocking some children's DVDs to meet the sudden upsurge in the market.

Whether the PlayStation 3 can do the same for HD-DVD is debatable, mostly because HD-DVD requires a bit more conscious thought into the matter, but this is already displaying more thinking-out than the author clearly has done. Especially funny is "You see, nobody told Billy Bob that he’d have to get an antenna or subscribe to HD service from his cable/satellite provider.", because in places like Australia and Europe, they have been telling Billy Bob exactly that for the past five years.

Sooner or later, there will be at least a 1080I format of some description. Having shown 1080I broadcasts to people who don't know their Component cables from their Composites, I know it is only a matter of time before HDTV starts to take over the air. TVs break down all the time, and more TVs are being made nowadays with the ability to display the higher-res signal. It isn't going to happen as quickly as the resellers obviously hope, but it is going to happen.

[lacywest]

My wife bought a movie called ... 8 Seconds ... on DVD ... and I was looking at it on our Sony 51 inch HI DEF TV and I was thinking ... how nice the picture looks ... and just how much better can HI DEF Disks improve the picture I was looking at.

Then a few hours later ... on Directv is a HI DEF Channel 76 and it was showing a last season episode of Battlestar Galactica ... the episode when the Pegasus was discovered.

The image quality looked great ... compared to watching it on the Sci-Fi channel.

[Marvingj]

We need to stop being Suck in all the time with the Media. They always make saling points so we will buy, buy, buy.

[Nilfennasion]

Last night I was flicking back and forth between SD and HD channels that were broadcasting Crossing Jordan. I do not normally watch that show, but it was just fascinating to see how much more detail I could make out, especially in Jill Hennesy's eyes, on HD.

HD is the future, there's no two ways about it. The question is how the transition will be made.

Lacywest, where did you get HD discs from?

[Conquest10]

I myself intend to buy a playstation for $400 just for the blu-ray. The fact that it's a game console is just a bonus.

You'll be $200 short (before taxes).

[Conquest10]

Last night I was flicking back and forth between SD and HD channels that were broadcasting Crossing Jordan. I do not normally watch that show, but it was just fascinating to see how much more detail I could make out, especially in Jill Hennesy's eyes, on HD.

I like what ABC (or was it NBC?) was doing last night. Instead of just showing the 4:3 with black bars on either side, the main video was pushed to the left and in the leftover space they were showing the results from different races. That is something that was not visible to non-HD viewers.

[Dv8ted2]

but it was just fascinating to see how much more detail I could make out, especially in Jill Hennesy's eyes, on HD.

I guess I am in the minority. I care more about show and movie content and plotlines than being able to see pimples on actors and actress's faces. :P

[Conquest10]

I care about content but you can't deny that the eye candy does help enhance the experience (as does the sound). Have you watched Discovery's Atlas HD series?

[Nilfennasion]

Given that the only free-to-air I normally watch with any kind of regularity would be House, you might think I wouldn't care about the difference HD makes. You'd be wrong. House also benefits in a great way from the extra resolution, especially where all the gore is concerned. The fact that there is less aliasing also helps.

[orbital517]

I'm really surprised at how many people in this discussion don't feel that HDTV is phenomenal. I switched to a HDTV plasma about 6 months ago and now find myself only watching HD channels. First thing I do when turning on my TV is flipping through what's showing on my Directv HD channels. Just about everything from sports, news, and movies look sooooo much better on HD compared to standard definition. I haven't purchased an HD-DVD player or Bluray player yet because I want to see what format is here to stay, but one of friend's let me borrow his for about a week with a few movies and I can definitely say........WOW!!!!

[lordsmurf]

Most positive comments on BD and HD tend to be "honeymoon" comments. Give it some time and you'll feel yourself finding more flaws in the tech, and pining for the older systems in quite a few situations. The improvements are truly limited to certain situations.

[orbital517]

Most positive comments on BD and HD tend to be "honeymoon" comments. Give it some time and you'll feel yourself finding more flaws in the tech, and pining for the older systems in quite a few situations. The improvements are truly limited to certain situations.

I don't really consider 6 months to be "honeymoon". I am curious to what "quite a few situations" you might be talking about when you would rather have your older systems as opposed to HD? Enlighten me.

[Cyrax9]

Okay, let's go through this slowly. There is a need for an HD Storage medium, however BD/HD DVD are probably not that medium, not as long as they keep this format war going. Talk to college students, that precious 18-24 demographic that the studios love and this is what you're generally going to here:

- We don't want to watch videos sitting at our desks on our PCs downloaded off of iTunes if we can avoid it; we want to watch them in front of our 27" (or larger) TV Sets in our living rooms
- We just spent -insert large sum of money here- upgrading from VHS to DVD, and we don't want to spend that money again for -insert number of discs here- HD discs
- HDTVs are too expensive, bug us again in 2009 when they're mandated. NOTE: There's a major misconception about the digital mandate being simultaneous with Hi-Def, and I worry that the public needs to be informed about the difference since there is no HD mandate as we all know.


I see someone's already mentioned the final nail in the Betamax coffin: porn. The extended tape time was what ultimately did Betamax in. For DVD, the porn industry realized that they could take advantage of several of the formats features. Namely multi-angle, the higher resolution, chapter stops, and multiple audio tracks. Some of these features are used on regular hollywood films now quite often while others aren't. I remember being promised multi-angle sports distribution and I haven't seen it to date. I've only seen Bandai put out "real" multi-angle DVDs for some Gundam releases to show the opening/ending credits in Japanese or English. The feature is underutilized. And what of the porn industry today? They distribute their stuff online via broadband content, and via DVD.

That brings us to the next issue: when IBM helped push DVD forward their "hidden agenda" was that the aging CD-ROM and the dead floppy disc weren't large enough to back-up hard drives, or to hold data for newer, large applications. Many software applications such as Virus Scanners are now distributed via direct-download, and more people have learned how to create RAID-1 configurations or own external hard drives today than in the past. Hard drives are larger than any optical disc and selling someone on backing up half a terabyte on 50GB discs is a bit futile; they'll just buy two drives and RAID them.

HD DVD and BD can still succeed in the PC area, but there needs to be an application that shows a "need" for this format. Let's look at what VHS, CD and CD-ROM and DVD-ROM and DVD-Video were successful.

VHS: VHS beat Betamax after they offered more than an hour on a tape, and studios realized that they wouldn't have to split videos into multiple parts. Before this the other option for watching Hollywood Films at home was subscription to HBO. What sold the idea of a VCR was a recordable medium for taping TV Shows from the "big three" in addition to all of the other factors that pushed VHS ahead of Betamax. Mind you, Beta could have easily won if recording were the only condition.

CD: Cassette tapes were easily eaten, recordable CDs were a thing of the future, and classical music lovers with disposable income pushed the format. Compared to LP and CD this was a major leap forward in quality. I own a hybrid SACD and a DVD-Audio. Both are excellent, but they were never promoted, so much for replacing the CD anytime soon. What caused the CD to replace the record was ease of use.

CD-ROM: One word -- MYST. That little computer game required CD-ROM, and was ported from the Mac to the PC in an era where Macs were starting to enter their worst sales decline for the 90s. MYST is what made people like those in my family who invested in a CD-ROM drive have our investment pay off.

DVD-ROM: Initially I would almost call this unsuccessful. My first-gen drive from 1997 was a mess. The Pentium II that it was installed in couldn't handle DVD-Video playback well and early Discs which were of slightly-better-than-VHS quality, would stop in the middle of a film. The fact that the PC was teathered to a monitor instead of a TV didn't help either. There was no way to record onto DVD discs at the time -- CD Burners had just penetrated the market -- and there weren't any games exclusive to DVD-ROM. Most ports, such as "Star Trek: Starfleet Academy" were buggy, but on occasion worked better than the aweful five CD-ROM versions of the same games where one disc would be dead -- a problem that had driven gamers nuts since the floppy era. However once MYST IV: Revelation was announced as a DVD-ROM only title people either had DVD Burners in their PCs with playback capabilities, or were willing to upgrade. MYST drove the PC optical disc wars for gaming until now. MYST V is said to be the final game in the series which is dissappointing and may be due to the format war and no way to further push the franchise with current technology. Recordable DVDs meanwhile keep burners selling and offer a way to back-up large files in most situations. The format really became a success with DVD-Video and that little TLA becoming the buzzword of the first decade of the 21st century.

DVD-Video: Laserdisc lovers need to get over the following fact: You're a niche market, deal. While it's true that LD had the advantage early on, the lack of a recordable LD, the lack of mainstream support for the format, and the fact that VHS was dying to consumers was enough of a reason to switch to DVD. Furthermore, the fact that you could take a laptop on vacation with a DVD-ROM drive in it, watch a hollywood movie, and not have to lug around a load of bulk equipment was a plus. It helped DVD-ROM actually succeed, and the Playstation 2 was the cheapest DVD player available. Likewise DVD had the following competition: VHS and Laserdisc. Two dated analog formats, and you might even argue that DVDs are just "Modern Laserdiscs" when you think about it. Unlike the PS3, the PS2 didn't have to worry about being part of a format war.

So what's HD DVD or BD going to offer that we don't already have? More storage? Maybe, but then it's a computer data format and not a video format, and video should be treated as a secondary feature. HD Videos? Tell me what good HD Videos are going to do without an HDTV and I'll buy one tomorrow. The fact is most Americans still don't own an HDTV and have no desire to invest in one at present. Not until all of the technical jargon is sorted out by people like us. I'm holding out for SED before I let my father invest in our first HDTV, if he's going to early-adopt something, it might as well be something that's billed on longevity.


All right, why not just distribute everything via download? How do you wrap a download as a gift for the holidays? You can't. Downloads have DRM that's even more ridiculous than that of DVDs, and usually are of lower quality. Besides, do you like watching TV on your PC Monitor? I don't. I like editing on my monitor, but not casually enjoying a show on it. How about telling me where I'm going to store all these files in case my hard drive explodes? You see, downloads have more problems then a format war does when Hollywood charges for them and offers no warranty for the product.

What these formats need to succeed is a need for an HD Disc that the niche buyers like ourselves will want. Think about it, do we want to go through another format war? I wasn't alive for the Betamax/VHS format war, but I remember the SACD/DVD-A format war quite well. I see both formats still muddling ahead with SACD slightly in the lead, and the only reason for that is the Hybrid discs they offer. Hollywood really needs to drop the DRM idiocy if they don't want to deal with angry consumers. They need these formats to sell or they're going to have other problems. Think about it, which is easier? Creating a few similar shows and reissuing older ones on a newer format, essentially "dinging" the same audience for their money again, or taking a chance on a new show? The former is easier for Hollywood, it's probably bad for consumers, but it's good for Hollywood.

Let's get away from video for a moment and talk audio. Can SACD still take the audio market from CD? Not only yes, but HELL YES! How? It's simple: Stop pressing "normal" CDs tomorrow. Stop pressing every CDDA and call the format dead. Now start pressing SACDs with Hybrid layers. Press only discs with Hybrid layers at first, and then begin to press new discs only as SACDs and you'll be able to convince the consumer to switch formats. Why? They're already getting "trapped" SACD audio. They can play their discs in a normal player, now they have the "software" to make them buy the hardware. It's that simple. But has the RIAA done this? No, they're too busy suing potential pirates in the US rather than going to Asia where hundreds of counterfit CDs sell for about a dollar. They've given themselves a bad public image and it's going to take them awhile to recover from it, if they ever recover from it.

Back to the MPAA and the HD DVD/BD issue. How do you market one of these formats? If you're the DVD Forum you might want to listen to this: Stop pressing DVDs. Yeah, you heard me, stop pressing DVDs. Press only HD DVDs with a "hybrid" DVD Playback layer (right now the HD DVD standard requires this as an option anyway,) and start selling discs that'll play in both SD and HD DVD players. Once you have enough HD DVDs (software) in the hands of the public, pitch your players again, and try to convince consumers to purchase an HD DVD player. (The hardware.) As for Blu-Ray, its only advantages are size (logical,) and the coating on the bottom that can withstand the attack of a phillips-head screwdriver. Granted that doesn't matter to us, but if a parent has kids it might be a good thing around people who feel the need to touch the data side of the disc.


The Playstation 3 won't save Blu-Ray either. In fact, I'll go as far as to say that the Playstation 3 is this generations N64. It's a good idea about five years ahead of its time. While Sony and Microsoft are pumping more graphics out of their systems, Nintendo is pumping out innovative game designs and controllers. If anything, the Wii could win this format war for NOT trying to be an HD graphics slut. The PS3 could lose it solely due to technology that's too new. Cell chips + BD = Unpredictable future = wary consumers.

Right now Hollywood needs to realize that consumers will buy media, whatever the format is we'll buy it, but there are some conditions. It has to be easy to use, it can't cost the average person a fortune, and there has to be a psychological NEED for the format. Right now even the AV "geeks" don't want to touch these formats when the think about previous format wars.


I only hope this format war generates a price war, at least that way whatever survives will be cheap.[/b]

[lordsmurf]

I am curious to what "quite a few situations" you might be talking about when you would rather have your older systems as opposed to HD? Enlighten me.

- Many HD sets poorly show 4:3 images, they are often stretched or squashed to some degree. Only the widescreen tends to have aspect ratio perfect.

- Noise. It's all abut the noise. More detail means more noise, and lots of it. Analog signals, DVD signals, video games, VHS tapes, cable, DV, satellite ... it may be a bit sharper, but it's also now showing you all the noise. Many of them fail to cover overscan noise too. TERRIBLE!

Since most people watch mostly these sources (even HD streams have noise), the promise of higher quality falls flat on its ass.

HDTV is sharper, no argument here! But higher quality? Not a chance.

And yes, 6 months is a honeymoon. Talk to me again in about 4-5 years.

[orbital517]

I am curious to what "quite a few situations" you might be talking about when you would rather have your older systems as opposed to HD? Enlighten me.

- Many HD sets poorly show 4:3 images, they are often stretched or squashed to some degree. Only the widescreen tends to have aspect ratio perfect.

- Noise. It's all abut the noise. More detail means more noise, and lots of it. Analog signals, DVD signals, video games, VHS tapes, cable, DV, satellite ... it may be a bit sharper, but it's also now showing you all the noise. Many of them fail to cover overscan noise too. TERRIBLE!

Since most people watch mostly these sources (even HD streams have noise), the promise of higher quality falls flat on its ass.

HDTV is sharper, no argument here! But higher quality? Not a chance.

And yes, 6 months is a honeymoon. Talk to me again in about 4-5 years.

I thought this thread was talking about Blu-ray and HD-DVD? Why are you talking about 4:3 images, Analog signals, VHS, etc... for? I am talking about High Definition, not analog signals. For anyone who says that HD movie is not a huge difference compared to a standard DVD has not yet experienced it. period.

[RLT69]

I thought this thread was talking about Blu-ray and HD-DVD? Why are you talking about 4:3 images, Analog signals, VHS, etc... for? I am talking about High Definition, not analog signals. For anyone who says that HD movie is not a huge difference compared to a standard DVD has not yet experienced it. period.

O.k. I'm sorry, it's early and I have not had enough sleep but....ARE YOU THIS DENSE.

Smurf: There are flaws in the HD technology
You: Could you site some examples
Smurf: Yes (lists examples)
You: Your examples are not fair

Christ man put on your thinking cap. For the record Smurf did provide an HD example - you know noise, not just in the analog signal but in the digital as well.

The biggest glaring problem with HD is a NON-HD signal! It's all about content and most content is not in HD. Thus, most people will be watching NON-HD content on their HD TV and that content will look crappy. Get the picture - pun intended.

So until most content is in HD buying a HD TV would be next to useless. Don't for get that most people have DVDs and some still have VHS tape. Do you expect those people to run out to the store and replace everything they own with HD counterparts? Not going to happen. They will replace what they own when their DVD player breaks and they cannot replace their DVD player AND the current technology will not play DVDs.

Most people do not give a flying fig for HD.

Also, I watch House too and I do not watch it for the eye candy. I watch the show for the writing and acting. HD close-ups of Cuddy's fun-bags would be nice but are not relevant to the show. Getting extra detail on House's stubble won't make me watch the show more.

[orbital517]

I thought this thread was talking about Blu-ray and HD-DVD? Why are you talking about 4:3 images, Analog signals, VHS, etc... for? I am talking about High Definition, not analog signals. For anyone who says that HD movie is not a huge difference compared to a standard DVD has not yet experienced it. period.

O.k. I'm sorry, it's early and I have not had enough sleep but....ARE YOU THIS DENSE.

Smurf: There are flaws in the HD technology
You: Could you site some examples
Smurf: Yes (lists examples)
You: Your examples are not fair

Christ man put on your thinking cap. For the record Smurf did provide an HD example - you know noise, not just in the analog signal but in the digital as well.

The biggest glaring problem with HD is a NON-HD signal! It's all about content and most content is not in HD. Thus, most people will be watching NON-HD content on their HD TV and that content will look crappy. Get the picture - pun intended.

So until most content is in HD buying a HD TV would be next to useless. Don't for get that most people have DVDs and some still have VHS tape. Do you expect those people to run out to the store and replace everything they own with HD counterparts? Not going to happen. They will replace what they own when their DVD player breaks and they cannot replace their DVD player AND the current technology will not play DVDs.

Most people do not give a flying fig for HD.

Also, I watch House too and I do not watch it for the eye candy. I watch the show for the writing and acting. HD close-ups of Cuddy's fun-bags would be nice but are not relevant to the show. Getting extra detail on House's stubble won't make me watch the show more.

How about YOU put your thinking cap on? First read the TITLE of this thread!!! What does it say? Does it mention anything whatsoever about a "NON-HD signal"??? Wait a minute..........I think it says "blu-ray & HD-DVD"!!! Are Blu-ray and HD-DVD "NON-HD signals"??? Or does the "HD" in front of HD-DVD stand for HIGH DEFINITION??? Read before you put your own foot in your mouth.

[lordsmurf]

HD, BD, whatever. High resolution progressive display technology, storage, signals, media, etc. It's all related.

[SingSing]

New consumer products score very well. They include :
Color TV, VCR, camcorder, CD, DVD....

Improved products are tougher sell. They include :
SACD/DVDaudio, Digital VHS, SVHS, Harddisk camcorder, DVD camcorder....

BD/HD DVD systems are improved DVD systems. Let's see whether the trend hold ?

[RLT69]

How about YOU put your thinking cap on? First read the TITLE of this thread!!! What does it say? Does it mention anything whatsoever about a "NON-HD signal"??? Wait a minute..........I think it says "blu-ray & HD-DVD"!!! Are Blu-ray and HD-DVD "NON-HD signals"??? Or does the "HD" in front of HD-DVD stand for HIGH DEFINITION??? Read before you put your own foot in your mouth

Did you read the article that started this thread? I guess not.

The article is entitled, "10 Reasons Why High Definition DVD Formats Have Already Failed."

In the article they talk about, yes you guessed it, things other than HD. Some key points are:

1. HD DVD and Blu-ray are NOT Quantum Leaps in Technology

2. The lack of HD content available on TV

Good job doing some basic research moron.

[davideck]

I think that the whole HDTV issue boils down to the personal preference of image resolution.
Picture quality issues are very subjective.

Some people are happy with an image resolution of 352x480. Some prefer 720x480. Some are now spoiled by HDTV and are happiest at 720p or 1080i/p.

As for the noise argument, it boils down to bitrate. At any resolution, high bitrate sources look better than low bitrate sources. The artifacts that I see on HD sources are no different from the ones I see on DVDs, but the difference in image detail is stunning. Higher quality? Absolutely!

The HD channels actually have the noise advantage because they are digital. The same can be said for HDMI.

And things continue to get better. I notice steady improvement in my local area. HD-DVD and Blu-Ray promise to bring us high quality HD sources. It will be interesting to see if people are willing to pay for it. If they aren't, it might just be that they are already completely satisfied with their HDTV experience.

[SingSing]

It will be interesting to see if people are willing to pay for it. If they aren't, it might just be that they are already completely satisfied with their HDTV experience.

To be fair, first and second generation HD and BD DVD players are not priced out of sight.
My first VCR cost $900.00, and my first DVD player cost $350.00. But earlier VCR and DVD players have nothing to compare them with. We are comparing HD and BD players with DVD players that cost $149.00 ( oppo player with HDMI ) to $29.00 ( Drug store ).

The other items we have to paid again are the content. The DVDs now price less than $19.00. Are we willing to pay for old movies on HD and BD again ?

BD and HD DVD will be here, either for PS3 game, or Xbox game, or Data backup. But will it be in average Joe's ( or Jane's ) home ?

Note : I should say "in average Pat's home ?", so I will be covered for all. Just a SNL joke.

[qz3fwd]

Actually 1080p is part of the ATSC specification (1080p 24) but will probably never be transmitted OTA due to bandwidth limitations.
http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ISSUES/what_is_ATSC.html