Is the time finally right for you to get bluray and/or hd-dvd?

[AlecWest]

Most are impressed with the quality of SD DVD on these flat screens.

Exactly. There is a false sense of urgency. It's 5-10 years out.

JMHO

Uh, actually, I didn't write that ... edDV did. BTW, speaking of "false sense of urgency," I still have people ask me why I haven't upgraded to HDTV yet. I ask them, "Why should I?" And they say, "If you don't, your TV will stop working in 2009."

The non-technically-inclined masses have confused the analog/digital switcheroo with the SDTV/HDTV switcheroo. And I suspect that a number of them bought HDTVs based on this confusion.

Consumers love these large flat displays and don't really care about high definition unless they find quality lacking with standard def sources on these large screens. Most buy medium size screens (30-42") or sit three meters back so don't see the priority for high def. Most are impressed with the quality of SD DVD on these flat screens.

That was an edDV quote, too (grin), but you did "try" to attribute it properly.

Years ago, a friend of mine invited me over to his house to watch TV. In his "theater room," he had an Advent Videobeam projection setup with a 10-foot screen. After that experience, I was spoiled (grin) and tend to snicker when someone refers to their 32" HDTV as a "home theater" setup. It would be like seeing a "real" mountain like Mt. Rainier ... and having someone in New York talk about the Adirondacks as "mountains." :P

I have seen an EDTV (enhanced definition) before was was impressed with the quality. But it seems that EDTVs are being discontinued right and left. I think that's a shame because EDTVs can properly display an SDTV signal as well as an HDTV signal (though, stepped down to 480P). If anything is premature, it's the demise of the EDTV that seems to be happening.

Regards,
J. Alec West

[edDV]

I have seen an EDTV (enhanced definition) before was was impressed with the quality. But it seems that EDTVs are being discontinued right and left. I think that's a shame because EDTVs can properly display an SDTV signal as well as an HDTV signal (though, stepped down to 480P). If anything is premature, it's the demise of the EDTV that seems to be happening.

Regards,
J. Alec West

Agree but the EDTV LCD plants have all been retooled for at least 1366x768. The 480p EDTV has become the "720p" 1366x768 LCD-TV. Unfortunately the SD focus is off 480p and down to 640x480i.

[DereX888]

LCD-based TVs are just another layer of the mess.
Just watch all these LCD television sets people bought in past 2 years going black in next 2-3-4 or 5 years at most, and the outcry that'll follow when people realise they can't just replace dead screen's backlights for cheap (or at all)... this will add another "anti-switch" resentment attributed most likely to the analog->digital switcheroo :/
IMHO LCD TVs are just temporary fad that'll pass soon.
Old tube TVs faded with age, but kept going. No such 'luck' with LCDs.
Once 'first wave' of dead LCD TVs happens, either consumers will avoid them, or (hopefully) by then the manufacturers will master cheap LED/OLED displays manufacturing.
I thought plasma displays would become as cheap as LCDs are by now, but unfortunately, as usual, "the bad money replaces the good money"...

[AlecWest]

HDTV does have it's place. That, I'll admit. But I think what it will evolve into is a format demanded only by a niche market. And there other things to consider besides the cost of the television set itself.

When the first plasma sets came out, a co-worker wanted to be the first guy on his block to get one ... and he did. BUT, he decided against buying the extended warranty protection which cost about 25% of the cost of the set. A month after he bought it, the screen went black. Now mind you, this is a BIG and HEAVY appliance (grin). He got some friends to help him load it into the back of his pickup and take it back to the store where he bought it. And, he brought his paperwork. When he got there, they asked him if he had the extended warranty. He said no. So they told him, "OK, we'll look at the set. If the problem is determined to be a manufacturing defect, we'll replace the set. If the problem is something other than a manufacturing defect, you'll have to find an alternate repair facility. The only sets we repair are those covered by the extended warranty."

The store also told him that, had he bought the extended warranty, repair would be covered regardless of what caused the problem (outside of intentional damage). Anyway, they determined that the cause of the problem was "rough handling after purchase" and refused to do any repair work. However, calling the manufacturer, he was able to find an alternate repair facility and did get the set repaired. Cost? Parts were not that bad. But parts and labor together amounted to half the cost of his set's purchase price.

In the SDTV world, people like me tend to look at things this way. If my set cost $100 to buy (it did) and if I found that repairing a problem would cost a significant percentage of the purchase price if not covered by a "standard" warranty, I'd drop it off at Goodwill and buy another $100 set.

But, I'll bet that many of people who buy HDTVs can just barely afford them ... or can't really afford them without using "plastic." What will happen when their screens go blank and they find that their $3,200 set will cost $1,600 to repair? $3,200 is a wee bit harder to come by than $100 ... and so is $1,600. This is especially true if you're still paying off the VISA bill for the dead set.

Frankly, I think the service nightmares to come (and they will come) will drive many more people away from HDTV ... and back into the arms of the SDTV crowd, simply because they just want to watch TV.

P.S. FWIW, this coworker is typical of the niche market that will develop. This guy is a sports nut. And, he has some kind of satellite service that allows him to watch sports programming, all in HD. That's ALL he watches when he's not at work (grin). Seriously. And there are a lot of guys just like him. There are also a lot of people who want HD exclusively for watching HD movies and/or the meager HD offerings from their cable/satellite service (other than special sports packages). But, these people are just a niche.

Joe and Suzy Sixpack who work 40-hour weeks just want to have something they can watch when they come home. Soaps ... variety shows ... a movie now and then ... all of which are primarily shown in SD mode and can be cheaply had from cable/satellite services. I think this consumer group is not only the majority now ... but will continue to be the majority into the foreseeable future. And even SD television has some stiff competition now for the leisure time of this consumer group ... namely, the Internet (grin). In all honesty, I spend more time on the net than I do watching television. And I think a lot of other people do, too, if the truth be known.

Regards,
J. Alec West

[FulciLives]

All this blah blah blah about SDTV staying around sounds like a bunch of old timers talking about the good 'ol days when you could walk into a bank and they knew your name and you didn't have to show ID and why use those new fangled ATM machines when they are just confusing and someone can hit you over the head etc.

I mean damn what a bunch of sissies.

HDTV is having a "rocky" start but it's here and come 2009 it WILL be the only choice and things will "smooth" out and you won't even be able to buy an SDTV anyways so ...

Quite your bellyaching and buy an HDTV already.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[edDV]

All this blah blah blah about SDTV staying around sounds like a bunch of old timers talking about the good 'ol days when you could walk into a bank and they knew your name and you didn't have to show ID and why use those new fangled ATM machines when they are just confusing and someone can hit you over the head etc.

I mean damn what a bunch of sissies.

HDTV is having a "rocky" start but it's here and come 2009 it WILL be the only choice and things will "smooth" out and you won't even be able to buy an SDTV anyways so ...

Quite your bellyaching and buy an HDTV already.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

Plenty of 480i CRT Digital TV sets will be sold well into the future. Also SD DVD recorders and ASTC/QAM tuners for old analog TV sets. The new "standard" TV will move up to a 40" 1366x768 LCD-TV that will get basic HD channels over the air, by cable box or QAM cable tuner.

Main networks are already HD prime time. Display can be HD or SD as determined by the user setting and user TV.

[AlecWest]

All this blah blah blah about SDTV staying around sounds like a bunch of old timers talking about the good 'ol days when you could walk into a bank and they knew your name and you didn't have to show ID and why use those new fangled ATM machines when they are just confusing and someone can hit you over the head etc.

I mean damn what a bunch of sissies.

HDTV is having a "rocky" start but it's here and come 2009 it WILL be the only choice and things will "smooth" out and you won't even be able to buy an SDTV anyways so ...

Quite your bellyaching and buy an HDTV already.

Hehehe, actually, I think we sound like a lot of jaded persons who heard a lot of experts and audiophiles say in the 1970s:

All this blah blah blah about STEREO staying around sounds like a bunch of old timers talking about the good 'ol days when you could walk into a bank and they knew your name and you didn't have to show ID and why use those new fangled ATM machines when they are just confusing and someone can hit you over the head etc.

I mean damn what a bunch of sissies.

QUADRAPHONICS is having a "rocky" start but it's here and come 1980 it WILL be the only choice and things will "smooth" out and you won't even be able to buy a STEREO anyways so ...

Quite your bellyaching and buy a 4-CHANNEL QUADRAPHONIC SYSTEM already.

Problem is, 1980 is a long time ago ... and the only places you can find QUADRAPHONIC system components anymore are in thrift stores, flea markets, and at garage sales.

Time will tell if HDTV travels down the same road.

Regards,
J. Alec West

[JohnnyMalaria]

LCD-based TVs are just another layer of the mess.
Just watch all these LCD television sets people bought in past 2 years going black in next 2-3-4 or 5 years at most, and the outcry that'll follow when people realise they can't just replace dead screen's backlights for cheap (or at all)... this will add another "anti-switch" resentment attributed most likely to the analog->digital switcheroo :/
IMHO LCD TVs are just temporary fad that'll pass soon.
Old tube TVs faded with age, but kept going. No such 'luck' with LCDs.
Once 'first wave' of dead LCD TVs happens, either consumers will avoid them, or (hopefully) by then the manufacturers will master cheap LED/OLED displays manufacturing.
I thought plasma displays would become as cheap as LCDs are by now, but unfortunately, as usual, "the bad money replaces the good money"...

I think I'll wait for OLED TVs. I really don't want a 40" fixed LED/plasma/whatever monstrosity in my living room. If I can roll it up, that's different!

[AlecWest]

Once 'first wave' of dead LCD TVs happens, either consumers will avoid them, or (hopefully) by then the manufacturers will master cheap LED/OLED displays manufacturing.

That's the key to the success or failure of HDTV in the "mainstream" marketplace ... namely, "cheap." Remember the BETA/VHS format war? Every videophile magazine I read said that BETA was the superior format. But manufacturers of VHS machines turned out a cheaper product. More people started buying VHS machines. Video stores carried fewer and fewer BETA titles. And BETA finally collapsed.

The buying power of the dollar is not going up ... nor will it, anytime soon. Heck, Indian businesses that used to accept U.S. dollars in lieu of Indian currency no longer do so. So, if the buying power of the dollar is not going up, that means that the spending habits of mainstream consumers will remain relatively stable ... or perhaps moderate downward if the buying power of the dollar decreases further. In such an economic environment, how do you convince a person who would spend $100 for a TV set to spend 10 times (or more) that amount for a new TV set ... especially if the costs of maintaining the set and acquiring the HD programming necessary to make the set "worth buying" will also increase?

The answer is "cheap." For myself, when I see the costs of HD television sets approach the costs of their SD counterparts of the same dimensions ... and when I see the costs of servicing an HD set approach the costs of servicing an SD set ... and when I see the costs of acquiring HD programming approach the costs of acquiring SD programming ... then I'll be interested in HDTV.

However, if I'm wrong about the mainstream consumer and, 10 years from now, everybody's spending a lot of money to acquire HD sets/service/programming ... and if I find myself the only person using an SDTV... I'll give my set to Goodwill and rediscover "radio" and "books." But somehow, I don't think mainstream consumers will be convinced to change their spending habits just for television programming ... anymore than they were convinced in the 1970s that quadraphonics would replace stereo as the "wave of the future."

Regards,
J. Alec West

[DereX888]

But somehow, I don't think mainstream consumers will be convinced to change their spending habits just for television programming ... anymore than they were convinced in the 1970s that quadraphonics would replace stereo as the "wave of the future."

Partially I agree.
There is still not enough true HD content, or actually there is almost none if we don't count live news, Discovery channel, and "reality" crap. All the older content (that's ~90% of programming IMHO) was recordrded in SD.
But regarding the television sets itself - I think people are learning the hard way.
My neighbour's cool Samsung fridge (the one with built-in so-called 'computer') had a black screen now. Fridge was out of warranty, and there is no way to buy backlight for its screen, nor even replace the screen itself. All he can buy is only the whole 'panel' for *just* ~$600
He bought entire new fridge, even better design - but no built-in screens - for just few hundred more.
Luckily he listened to me before and bought a big projector for his tv room instead of 'large' LCD HDTV as he was going to. Back then their prices were almost the same.
Now he swears not to even look at any LCD-based television sets ever

OTOH I'm surprised how come small LCD computer monitors (I mean 19'' and less) that were available for years on the market alkready - how come those last so long? I had only 1 (one) monitor to suffer from dead backlight in past 10 years or so. Isn't it the length of the fluorescent tube inside that matters? The longer the backlight tube (the less 'twisted' it is in the back, unlike in the large screens) the longer it lasts?

[Dv8ted2]

I would have to say unequivocally no on moving to Blu-ray or HD-DVD. I see no benefit right now,as I do not have a high-definition television. I am not in a hurry to replace my three televisions that still do what they are supposed to. I deal with forced obsolescence all the time in my field. I am not quite ready to call my televisions obsolete.

Standard dvd's are fine with me.

[waheed]

I'm looking for a combo Blu-Ray/HD-DVD Drive for the PC, not a burner as not ready for a burner yet.

Prices are still too high for what I expect and am going to wait !

[somebodeez]

Is the time finally right for you to get bluray and/or hd-dvd?

Simply put - Nope, not yet.
We don't even have HDTV yet. Still too expensive, still too many issues blah blah blah.

[adam]

There is still not enough true HD content, or actually there is almost none if we don't count live news, Discovery channel, and "reality" crap. All the older content (that's ~90% of programming IMHO) was recordrded in SD.

You are way off here. The only thing that was EVER shot in "SD" was a home movie on a DV camcorder. Theatrically released content dating back for decades has been shot on 35mm film. Even the oldest most low budget stuff was still shot on at least 16mm film. Both are still significantly higher quality than what HD can provide. Do a websearch on something like, "HD compared to film" and you will see why every film ever made is "true HD."

[JohnnyMalaria]

There is still not enough true HD content, or actually there is almost none if we don't count live news, Discovery channel, and "reality" crap. All the older content (that's ~90% of programming IMHO) was recordrded in SD.

You are way off here. The only thing that was EVER shot in "SD" was a home movie on a DV camcorder. Theatrically released content dating back for decades has been shot on 35mm film. Even the oldest most low budget stuff was still shot on at least 16mm film. Both are still significantly higher quality than what HD can provide. Do a websearch on something like, "HD compared to film" and you will see why every film ever made is "true HD."

Nonsense. The vast majority of the TV production until a few (5 or so) years ago was SD. Either 405, 525 or 625 line. 50 or 59.94 field per second. The cameras were the same. The VTRs were the same. The reasons so much of the older material is lost are because the tapes were wiped to save storage space and/or the original broadcasts were live from CRT-based cameras pumping out the same signal as received by the viewer.

Obviously, cinema productions were on film as were some TV productions. Often, there would be a mix of video and film - video in the studio and film on location. The latter most likely because of the costs and logistics of managing large outside broadcast equipment etc compared to reels of film.

[adam]

Maybe more was shot in "SD" than I know. I won't argue about that, my point is that the vast majority of content out there is in fact perfectly suitable for HD content because it is on film, and I am positive that that is not, "nonsense."

The biggest market for HD releases are obviously theatrical films and all of those are going to be on film or if very recent, shot in HD. As for television programming, the only source I have to go by is imdb or the production studio itself, and picking any old sitcom I can think of they have been shot on 35mm or 16mm. This is not a recent trend. Mary Tyler Moore show, Leave it to Beaver, I Love Lucy, pick anything. All shot in 35mm the same as the latest Hollywood blockbuster released this year.

My real point was in addressing the misconception that HD is some sort of new filming standard that is superior to film, such that an HD release gains nothing in quality unless it was filmed in recent years. Anything shot on film dating all the way back to the early 1900's is suitable for HD release so long as the source has been properly preserved. "True HD" as Derex calls it is still inferior to film.

[DereX888]

Maybe more was shot in "SD" than I know. I won't argue about that, my point is that the vast majority of content out there is in fact perfectly suitable for HD content because it is on film, and I am positive that that is not, "nonsense."

The biggest market for HD releases are obviously theatrical films and all of those are going to be on film or if very recent, shot in HD. As for television programming, the only source I have to go by is imdb or the production studio itself, and picking any old sitcom I can think of they have been shot on 35mm or 16mm. This is not a recent trend. Mary Tyler Moore show, Leave it to Beaver, I Love Lucy, pick anything. All shot in 35mm the same as the latest Hollywood blockbuster released this year.

My real point was in addressing the misconception that HD is some sort of new filming standard that is superior to film, such that an HD release gains nothing in quality unless it was filmed in recent years. Anything shot on film dating all the way back to the early 1900's is suitable for HD release so long as the source has been properly preserved. "True HD" as Derex calls it is still inferior to film.

"True HD" is still good for HDTV, and is not meant for theatrical relese, so what is your point at all?
And noone here said anything about "HD being some new filming standard".

I can assure you, that as we speak there is still some content being shot on i.e. old betamax equipment (and I don't mean Africa but your country).
Only big budget star-studded shows had a priviledge of being shot on film. If you've look at the tv programming content, you'd found that such 'high profile' shows were and still are real minority.

As JohnnyMalaria said, 5 years ago (thats 2003) there was still a lot of tv programming made on old equipment. Even 2004 I recall some tv series just switching to HD (don't remember other titles, but "American Chopper" and "ReGenesis" come to mind since I was many times on the sets and locations of those).
Until 2002 probably nine out of ten shows were shot in SD.
2002/2003 was the time when almost every new production started in HD, and within year or so most 'old shows' have also 'catched up'.
Before that only handful of shows was shot in HD (big budget ones again - last seasons of "Friends" or "Seinfeld" - BTW, if you have ever watched either one, please compare the quality between first and last seasons of these shows - on a standard SD DVD - and tell me again that all the old old content is perfectly suitable for HD, ROTFL!!).
And no, I dont say the equipment (cameras) were the problem, no.
The major obstacle were always craft people, wardrobe & makeup departments, also many of the aging 'stars'.

If you know otherwise then you must have seen it in some other studios than the ones I have to attend to

[Kayembee]

DereX888 wrote:
> adam wrote:
>> My real point was in addressing the misconception
>> that HD is some sort of new filming standard that is superior to
>> film, such that an HD release gains nothing in quality unless it
>> was filmed in recent years. Anything shot on film dating all the
>> way back to the early 1900's is suitable for HD release so long
>> as the source has been properly preserved. "True HD" as Derex
>> calls it is still inferior to film.
>
> Only big budget star-studded shows had a priviledge of being shot
> on film. If you've look at the tv programming content, you'd
> found that such 'high profile' shows were and still are real
> minority.

C'mon, isn't it obvious you're talking about two different
things, guys? Adam's talking about theatrical films, DereX888 is
talking about TV. So you're both right: Most TV, even now, is
shot in SD, or if shot on film, edited and finalized in SD. But
almost all professional movies are shot on 35mm film, always have
been, and that's essentially HD resolution.

Speaking for myself, I tend to be much more interested in movies
than TV, so HD means a lot to me. But one nit, Adam: I dunno if
"True HD" is inferior to film. Think of how the frame size of
35mm has shrunk over the years, as the sound track(s) grow
larger, and then think how often "widescreen" is shot with matted
35mm instead of anamorphic lenses. They're not filming for the
BIG screens (60+ feet) any more, there's too few left; they're
filming for your neighborhood multiplex, 24' screens if you're
lucky, so they get by with less.

[adam]

As JohnnyMalaria said, 5 years ago (thats 2003) there was still a lot of tv programming made on old equipment. Even 2004 I recall some tv series just switching to HD (don't remember other titles, but "American Chopper" and "ReGenesis" come to mind since I was many times on the sets and locations of those).
Until 2002 probably nine out of ten shows were shot in SD.
2002/2003 was the time when almost every new production started in HD, and within year or so most 'old shows' have also 'catched up'.

Here you go again. HD is the standard that it is broadcast at, not necessarily the standard that it is shot in. Some producers switch to HD cameras to ease the transition and cost of broadcasting in HD, but the two are mutually exclusive. Take the shows you mentioned, though I'll omit ReGenesis since I'm not familiar with it and can't find any specs on it.

EVERY episode of Seinfeld was shot on 35mm film dating back to the pilot episode all the way through the finale. When the series switched over to HD broadcasting they took the 35mm masters and remastered it in HD and broadcast it as such. The quality of the prints did not switch when they went HD, the masters are all identical quality and all can be mastered for HD. The same is true with most sitcoms and many other sindicated shows.
http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/03/21/hd-syndication-seinfeld-and-jeopardy/

American Chopper was also shot entirely on 35mm film until they switched to Varicams (HD)!!!

Where do you think all of these HD channels come from? Sure there are some individual programs that are simply upconverted from SD material, but by and large they license the rights to go back to the original 35mm print and remaster it in HD.

[edDV]

The sorts of programming in demand for DVD was usually shot on 35mm film or recently on 24p film style HD cameras. This would include

- Theatrical films
- Made for TV films
- TV Drama, Sitcoms, etc.
- Major Documentaries

Exceptions that are usually shot on video

- Sports (except NFL Films)
- News, most reality and magazine format shows
- Talk Shows (including late night)
- Prime Time Variety (like the old Carole Burnet show through SNL and American Idol)

The first group can be remastered to HD with high quality. Even the original Star Trek series is being remastered to HD (but with new models and effects sequences). Since 2002 or so, most cable series have moved from Digital Betacam to HD (HDCAM, XDCAM, DVCProHD, HDV).

Local TV stations are slowly moving to HD but most field shooting is still SD. Large market stations are going to DVCProHD or XDCAMHD for field cameras. Smaller stations are using HDV.

[Conquest10]

EVERY episode of Seinfeld was shot on 35mm film dating back to the pilot episode all the way through the finale. When the series switched over to HD broadcasting they took the 35mm masters and remastered it in HD and broadcast it as such. The quality of the prints did not switch when they went HD, the masters are all identical quality and all can be mastered for HD. The same is true with most sitcoms and many other sindicated shows.
http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/03/21/hd-syndication-seinfeld-and-jeopardy/

American Chopper was also shot entirely on 35mm film until they switched to Varicams (HD)!!!

While true that Seinfeld was shot on film and HD versions of it exist, it is still not broadcast in HD. Many other older shows are such as Law & Order and Northern Exposure.

Wasn't American Chopper shot on DV until it went HD?

[JohnnyMalaria]

Even the original Star Trek series is being remastered to HD (but with new models and effects sequences).

Well, I shan't bother watching that then. Leave it as it is. Roddenberry must be spinning in his tractor beam.

[JohnnyMalaria]

Many programs in the 60's and 70's were telecined (kinoscope). The acquisition was with electronic CRT cameras. If they weren't broadcast live then they were filmed by pointing a 16mm (or sometimes 35mm) camera at a CRT. This worked well for black and white. The advent of color production also brought cheaper VTRs, so the need for film distribution/archiving became less.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telerecording

[edDV]

Many programs in the 60's and 70's were telecined (kinoscope). The acquisition was with electronic CRT cameras. If they weren't broadcast live then they were filmed by pointing a 16mm (or sometimes 35mm) camera at a CRT. This worked well for black and white. The advent of color production also brought cheaper VTRs, so the need for film distribution/archiving became less.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telerecording

Ampex invented the VTR in 1955. The initial demand for recorders was to allow network time zone shifting of broadcasts to the Mountain, Pacific and Alaska time zones. The US TV broadcast market centered on the local broadcaster who also needed recorders to support syndicated and local programming. For this reason plus the earlier adoption of color, Kinoscope recording died out in the US market in the early 60's

[adam]

Wasn't American Chopper shot on DV until it went HD?

No, but it looks like it wasn't shot in 35mm either. It was always shot in "HD" since the beginning. They used varicams for the first three seasons and then switched, downgraded really, to an AJ-HDX900 HD camcorder.

http://www.dv.com/news/news_item.php?articleId=196602590

[Grain]

Even the original Star Trek series is being remastered to HD (but with new models and effects sequences).

Well, I shan't bother watching that then. Leave it as it is. Roddenberry must be spinning in his tractor beam.

It's not nearly as invasive as it sounds, they didn't pull a Lucas and have Khan shoot first. The only downfall IMO is that the HD picture shows a lot of makeup that soft SD didn't.

[edDV]

Even the original Star Trek series is being remastered to HD (but with new models and effects sequences).

Well, I shan't bother watching that then. Leave it as it is. Roddenberry must be spinning in his tractor beam.

The damage is already done
Available at Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000VDDDY6/bookstorenow76-20

[Grain]

It's a really nice set video/audio wise, but the case/box is a huge POS. I transfered mine to a 10 disc amaray case.

[edDV]

The Amazon site has 4 behind the scenes clips that describe the restoration. They went back to camera negatives, remastered the sound and effects.

[marvel2020]

I've bought the LG GGW-H20L thats play both formats for my PC and I've only bought 1 HD-DVD so far...Serenity, don't intend to buy any other HD-DVD that I already own on DVD except maybe the LOTR trilogy when it comes out on either format and Battlestar Galactica S1 HD-DVD.