Blu-ray/HD-DVD format war discussion thread.......

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I never had a problem with this on a SD TV. HD doesn't really let you see anything you couldn't see before, it just makes the picture more pretty.

That is incorrect, as you can see more of the playing field with widescreen HD. With the way everyone is compressing the heck out of SD to cram more in (or at least DirecTV, and my local stations OTA so they can have all of their side stations), HD made a huge difference in my ability to tell who was who.

[Bee]

I've had people tell me they couldn't see much difference either. Just about every time when I go to their house they have stuff hooked up wrong or are watching SD on a HDTV. I saw an article the other day that indicated only about 1/3 of the people who own a HDTV actually have HD content.

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

. Sony isn't losing nearly as much now as they were at launch on the PS3 as they would like you to believe. Their cost point is dropping.

For the price point to drop, they have to produce them in mass. Based on most estimates I've seen the PS3 is plagued by huge stocks of inventory (apparently they stuffed the pipelines to make their sales numbers). This means that the PS3's being sold in the next 6 months to a year were PS3 made a while back at the higher price point. So they're basically still hemorhaging money on these bad boys.

Frankly, until the PS3 comes out with some decent games and alot of them for that matter, these things are going to just sit there.

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by Bee

I've had people tell me they couldn't see much difference either. Just about every time when I go to their house they have stuff hooked up wrong or are watching SD on a HDTV. I saw an article the other day that indicated only about 1/3 of the people who own a HDTV actually have HD content.

That's actually hillarious. They must love you when you fix their set for them. My neighbor was complaining about how her cable has been crappy for the past year. I went over to take a look and the picture was damn near unwatchable. I reached behind the set and screwed in the cable connection tight and whalla ... good pic. She thought I was a genious.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by moriarty

For the price point to drop, they have to produce them in mass. Based on most estimates I've seen the PS3 is plagued by huge stocks of inventory (apparently they stuffed the pipelines to make their sales numbers). This means that the PS3's being sold in the next 6 months to a year were PS3 made a while back at the higher price point. So they're basically still hemorhaging money on these bad boys.

Oh, they're still losing money. My only point was instead of the $300-400 that they were losing at the start, they're now losing more like $200. With that said, it does drop the cost of the BR players as well, so it definitely benefits Sony to some extent as it allows them to drop the price of the stand-alone players as well. In fact, the high inventory of PS3's may be part of the reason some of the HD drives/players are already so cheap.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by moriarty

That's actually hillarious. They must love you when you fix their set for them. My neighbor was complaining about how her cable has been crappy for the past year. I went over to take a look and the picture was damn near unwatchable. I reached behind the set and screwed in the cable connection tight and whalla ... good pic. She thought I was a genious.

My parents have a 65" 1080p TV, yet they use a local cable company that had no HD channels (and won't have them for another year or so). I mentioned to my dad that he'd have a much better picture if he went with a satellite dish. He rambled on about a neighbor who said that satellite TV was a bad deal. I just stopped talking because it was obvious he wasn't going to bite.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Dude, if you can seriously watch a 720P Widescreen Football (or even better Hockey, Hockey was MADE for HD) game and watch the same game in 480i narrow and tell me you can't see what the big deal is, it's time to visit the Optometrist...

Heck, I can finally tell who is carrying the ball / has the puck as I can actually read the numbers on their jersey now (and often the names). Plus you can see far more of the field or ice and follow what's going on easier.

...but but but I could already tell who had the ball or puck.

I watched HD on a big television at a restaurant. I was sitting at the bar, and the television was only about 12 feet in front of me, if that. I mean, I could tell that there's a difference in the picture, but I guess the picture just looked a bit "crisper" to me (just like if you're watching video instead of film). I mean, if high-definition TV sets were cheaper, sure, I'd go ahead and get one. Personally, it just didn't "wow" me enough to make me want to spend so much money on it.

I know I'm weird.

[Pyser]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

...but but but I could already tell who had the ball or puck.

I watched HD on a big television at a restaurant. I was sitting at the bar, and the television was only about 12 feet in front of me, if that. I mean, I could tell that there's a difference in the picture, but I guess the picture just looked a bit "crisper" to me (just like if you're watching video instead of film). I mean, if high-definition TV sets were cheaper, sure, I'd go ahead and get one. Personally, it just didn't "wow" me enough to make me want to spend so much money on it.

I know I'm weird.

pumpy, pumpy, pumpy. what are we going to do with you?

i just dont understand any of this post

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Oh, they're still losing money. My only point was instead of the $300-400 that they were losing at the start, they're now losing more like $200. With that said, it does drop the cost of the BR players as well, so it definitely benefits Sony to some extent as it allows them to drop the price of the stand-alone players as well. In fact, the high inventory of PS3's may be part of the reason some of the HD drives/players are already so cheap.

Yeah but if you follow the laws of manufacturing, your price drops as a function of the number of units manufactured. Since they haven't sold that mcuh I doubt their costs have dropped by 50% or anything near that, and since their pipeline is full even if the price has dropped those lower cost units coming off the line today won't be sold for like 6 months.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Pyser

pumpy, pumpy, pumpy. what are we going to do with you?

i just dont understand any of this post

If I remember my training correctly, film is processed (or at least exhibited) in a way to make it appear with a "grainy" quality. I'm pretty certain that the films shot on 68mm or 70mm or whatever that you see in the theater could look a lot crisper than they actually do. It's what moviegoers are used to, though, so they keep cranking 'em out that way.

Whatever the case, I've just always found video to have a crisper, more saturated look than film. Maybe it's just me.

[Bee]

Originally Posted by moriarty

That's actually hillarious. They must love you when you fix their set for them. My neighbor was complaining about how her cable has been crappy for the past year. I went over to take a look and the picture was damn near unwatchable. I reached behind the set and screwed in the cable connection tight and whalla ... good pic. She thought I was a genious.

Actually half of them get pissed when I tell them they have to exchange their cable boxes for one that receive HD. Not to mention that now I've had two of my wife's friends who after getting the right boxes after I told them what they needed call me and tell me they still don't see a difference. Both times they were still watching the SD channels and the cable company hadn't been contacted to activate the HD versions of the channels. These aren't stupid people, but everything you need to do to actually get HD can be overwhelming for the average person.

[Pyser]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

If I remember my training correctly, film is processed (or at least exhibited) in a way to make it appear with a "grainy" quality. I'm pretty certain that the films shot on 68mm or 70mm or whatever that you see in the theater could look a lot crisper than they actually do. It's what moviegoers are used to, though, so they keep cranking 'em out that way.

Whatever the case, I've just always found video to have a crisper, more saturated look than film. Maybe it's just me.

ok, now i have to go out on a limb, because im not positive of all this, and im feeling to lazy to research it. but hopefully my ancient film degree will help out here.

but most movies are shot on 35mm. 70mm i believe is usually reserved for imax. the grain you speak of is usually most present on smaller film types, like 16mm (think Clerks). some grain may be present for 35mm films, but that is a style choice. think how many movies on hd channels there are - they were all transfered from film, which debatably has as much detail as hd.

now, movies shot on 'video' - the big budget ones, anyway - are shot in hd. new star wars, parts of, if not all of spiderman, even films like collateral - do have a slightly different look than film, and also obviously lend themselves to special effects a bit easier. but if you are talking about just regular video, there is no comparison to film.

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by Bee

Actually half of them get pissed when I tell them they have to exchange their cable boxes for one that receive HD. Not to mention that now I've had two of my wife's friends who after getting the right boxes after I told them what they needed call me and tell me they still don't see a difference. Both times they were still watching the SD channels and the cable company hadn't been contacted to activate the HD versions of the channels. These aren't stupid people, but everything you need to do to actually get HD can be overwhelming for the average person.

Oh, I totally believe that. If they actually need an antenna to get the HD locals it just adds to the confusion. I had to help a buddy, who's a very successfuly finance guy, get hooked up with a new plasma/HD setup and I could sense his frustration/confusion as I tried to help explain things like why he should/shouldn't get HDMI cables etc..

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

I have a confession to make, and I figure that this thread is a good place in which to do it.

I've seen standard definition TV, and I've seen high definition TV, and the difference isn't nearly enough to make me want to go with HD yet. I just don't see what the big deal is, and I was even watching sports in HD, and it didn't do much for me. With that said, this whole HD-DVD/Blu-Ray deal doesn't do anything for me either.

I just had to get that off my chest. I know I'm an idiot.

Yes you are . The difference between HD TV and SD TV is absolutely breathtaking. If you can't see the big deal, I'm not sure what planet you are living on.

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yes you are . The difference between HD TV and SD TV is absolutely breathtaking. If you can't see the big deal, I'm not sure what planet you are living on.

Actually, he's pretty lucky as he won't feel compelled to go buy a $2000 tv.

I will say, the difference gets more noticeable as the size of the TV increases (much like viewing a low Megapixel picture looks ok until you blow it up). So if Pumpy was comparing pictures on 20" sets he might not perceive the difference as much. If he was looking at 60" sets ... then he's just crazy.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Pyser

ok, now i have to go out on a limb, because im not positive of all this, and im feeling to lazy to research it. but hopefully my ancient film degree will help out here.

but most movies are shot on 35mm. 70mm i believe is usually reserved for imax. the grain you speak of is usually most present on smaller film types, like 16mm (think Clerks). some grain may be present for 35mm films, but that is a style choice. think how many movies on hd channels there are - they were all transfered from film, which debatably has as much detail as hd.

now, movies shot on 'video' - the big budget ones, anyway - are shot in hd. new star wars, parts of, if not all of spiderman, even films like collateral - do have a slightly different look than film, and also obviously lend themselves to special effects a bit easier. but if you are talking about just regular video, there is no comparison to film.

My soon-to-be-ancient communications degree only involved a little film study.

I think my use of the word "crisp" is a little bit off. You'll get more detail on 35mm film than you will from an old television video camera, obviously. When displayed on a television screen, though, I've just found a TV program that was shot on video to have a less grainy appearance. Video looks a lot like a live program, while something on film looks processed (which it is, obviously). I guess it was a bad idea for me to try to describe it using movies as an example. Maybe a better way of explaining what I was trying to say would be to talk about a football game on TV. Even in SD, I prefer the way a live broadcast looks to the way it looks once NFL Films has gotten a hold of it.

It's just a silly personal preference on my part. I think this is evidenced by the fact that I enjoyed my video production class a lot more than I enjoyed my film production class. I don't like working with film at all.

[Pyser]

theres a reason i work in tv now instead of film

but youre just wrong about hd not looking SO much better than standard definition. go watch Planet Earth in hd and tell me you arent convinced

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Pyser

theres a reason i work in tv now instead of film

but youre just wrong about hd not looking SO much better than standard definition. go watch Planet Earth in hd and tell me you arent convinced

Maybe I need to have the thing in my house (or at least somebody's house) in order to understand it. I've seen HD in stores and the restaurant I mentioned before, but it just didn't click with me.

Anyway, I was impressed with it, but I wasn't "let me go buy a big $1000 TV" impressed.

Sorry for the threadjack, everybody.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by moriarty

Actually, he's pretty lucky as he won't feel compelled to go buy a $2000 tv.

He don't know what he's missing . I'm convinced there is something wrong going on .

I know that I personally will watch stuff I'd never watch otherwise simply because its on one of my HD channels. Even though an SD channel may have some programming I would have picked if both channels were broadcast in HD. And I also know that I'm not the only one who has done this.

I hardly watch my SD channels anymore.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Pyser

theres a reason i work in tv now instead of film

but youre just wrong about hd not looking SO much better than standard definition. go watch Planet Earth in hd and tell me you arent convinced

My wife started to watch one of the Planet Earth episodes on our 50" HDTV. After watching just the intro, she simply said, "Holy S%it! That's unbelievable!".

Note that my wife is one that rarely even curses. It's an amazing show. It wouldn't have 1/10 the impact is does if it were on standard TV.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

My wife started to watch one of the Planet Earth episodes on our 50" HDTV. After watching just the intro, she simply said, "Holy S%it! That's unbelievable!".

Note that my wife is one that rarely even curses. It's an amazing show. It wouldn't have 1/10 the impact is does if it were on standard TV.

An anecdote to demonstrate, one of my best friends watched the first Planet Earth on an SDTV. She didn't think it was all that impressive (and she does like nature shows). Ask ANYONE who has seen it on HDTV and I doubt anyone will say it was less than impressive.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Errr, what is Planet Earth?

[ISiddiqui]

See, if you had an HDTV, you'd know automatically... cause you'd be glued to the screen .

http://www.amazon.com/Planet-Earth-C...8822684&sr=8-1

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

Errr, what is Planet Earth?

It's a wildlife show shot around the world completely in HD. It was the first HD show that made my wife's jaw drop.

[sabotai]

I'm waiting to see what format the porn industry adopts. That'll determine which format wins.

[Pyser]

Originally Posted by sabotai

I'm waiting to see what format the porn industry adopts. That'll determine which format wins.

i dont think porn in hd is a good idea

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Pyser

i dont think porn in hd is a good idea

Sure it is, they just need to double the bloom effect to hide those needle scars.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

My wife started to watch one of the Planet Earth episodes on our 50" HDTV. After watching just the intro, she simply said, "Holy S%it! That's unbelievable!".

Note that my wife is one that rarely even curses. It's an amazing show. It wouldn't have 1/10 the impact is does if it were on standard TV.

My only Blu-Ray purchase. I'd have been fine with a DVD purchase of it, but figured sinse I had the Blu Ray and the PS3 was collecting dust with the crappy games, it may as well be doing some work. The series is simply breathtaking and watching it on SD vs. HD or Blu-Ray is unbelievable.

Not sure if there is a thread already created for Planet Earth, but there should be. Best show put out in a long, long time.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by sabotai

I'm waiting to see what format the porn industry adopts. That'll determine which format wins.

They already went with HD DVD

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

They already went with HD DVD

I read that, but I also read somewhere that some porn movies were alos being released on Blu-Ray, so I don't think they exclusively picked on or the other (yet).

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by sabotai

I read that, but I also read somewhere that some porn movies were alos being released on Blu-Ray, so I don't think they exclusively picked on or the other (yet).

I thought Sony wasn't letting the porn industry use Blu-Ray.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

I thought Sony wasn't letting the porn industry use Blu-Ray.

Yeah, that's what I thought. But then I know I read somewhere that Debbie Does Dallas was being released on Blu-Ray.

Here's a story on it:
hxxp://www.tech.co.uk/home-entertainment/news/porn-industry-to-make-its-blu-ray-debut?articleid=1986963734

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

I thought Sony wasn't letting the porn industry use Blu-Ray.

They're just not formally endorsing it. Porn makers can go out and mass produce videos on a Blu-ray disk just like any individual or company. It takes a movie, a burner and some fancy graphics on the cover.

There's currently a couple of companies working to be the first one to put a porn movie out on BR.

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=178

[sabotai]

Stomp The Yard is coming out on Blu-Ray!!! We have a winner!

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

They're just not formally endorsing it. Porn makers can go out and mass produce videos on a Blu-ray disk just like any individual or company. It takes a movie, a burner and some fancy graphics on the cover.

There's currently a couple of companies working to be the first one to put a porn movie out on BR.

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=178

Go wash up.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

Go wash up.

You not a big fan of porn, MizzouRah???

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You not a big fan of porn, MizzouRah???

Just the vintage stuff.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

That is incorrect, as you can see more of the playing field with widescreen HD. With the way everyone is compressing the heck out of SD to cram more in (or at least DirecTV, and my local stations OTA so they can have all of their side stations), HD made a huge difference in my ability to tell who was who.

I missed this reply earlier. Widescreen HD does show a bit more of the field, so there is more to see that way. I mostly meant that the video quality of SD is plenty sufficient to identify players, numbers, and ball/puck locations. I do love my HD sports and comment on how pretty it is every time I watch something, but I've never had trouble identifying anything in SD.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Ok, here's the rules of HD according to VfP. I've owned HD since early 2002. I was one of very few who had one. That was 5 frickin' years ago. There was hardly any programming. I couldn't even get HD content on cable and had to go with the dish, and even had to use the stupid antenna for HD local channels (for those few shows that were even in HD). By the way, the eyepopping nature of shows you otherwise don't watch (like Discovery or National Geographic) wears off after awhile.

The number of people that now have HD 5 years later = still very few. Sure, you can talk about units moved, etc. etc. , but compared to standard definition TVs, it's still a drop in the bucket. Most regular Joes and Janes just aren't interested in blowing a $1,000 or $2,000 on HDTVs. Now, there is definitely a difference in picture quality (and I love HD), but Pumpy's take on the picture quality is shared by many average Joe's and Jane's. I'm thinking another 5 frickin' years before HDTVs are "common" in households. Let's also not forget that while HDTVs continue to come down in price, you still have to get the frickin' HD set top box for cable or dish (and that just pushes the affordability way out there).

What does that mean? It means that the battle between BR and HD-DVD doesn't mean squat for at least that long. By then, with increased internet speed and the capacity of computer hard drives, movies will be moving towards digital purchase over internet (either by computer or tv box of some sort that will save the movies on hard drive) and PPV.

So, in my opinion, BR and HD-DVD (in the grand scheme of things) is already a dead technology. Sort of like Digital Audio Tape was when it was coming out more than a decade ago.

As for the quality of BR and HD-DVD: at some point, you just don't need to push the upper echelon of picture quality. A regular DVD on a progressive scan player on a regular HDTV is simply good enough (again, this is coming from a big HD fan and early adopter of the technology). Unless you go 1080p for the HDTV, it's simply not worth it. And how long do you think it will take for the 1080p HDTV to be come "common" in households? Anyways, people would be better off splashing their dough on a good sound system if they really wanted to optimize their experience rather than wringing out the last few points of picture quality with BR and HD-DVD.

And finally, for those who think Sony's grand plan was to "sacrifice" the PS3 to win the HD war, you must be nuts. What kind of frickin' business plan is that. You try to win the HD war AND keep winning the console war. Now, it may end up contributing to the HD victory as a fallback, but this was clearly not the plan. Didn't I read the Sony guy involved with the PS3 strategy lost his job? Isn't that a good indication that PS3 sales did not go according to plan?

Of course, I could just be full of sh$t, but no more than some of the other bullsh$t being thrown around in this thread.

[MJ4H]

For the record Ive had an HDTV for over a year and have never seen one HD image on the thing. The hassle and cost of receiving the programming is the problem here. The TV itself was just $100 more than the non HD version we were going to buy last year so we bought it just in case. Not worth it to get programming yet.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by MattJones4Heisman

The number of people that now have HD 5 years later = still very few. Sure, you can talk about units moved, etc. etc. , but compared to standard definition TVs, it's still a drop in the bucket. Most regular Joes and Janes just aren't interested in blowing a $1,000 or $2,000 on HDTVs. Now, there is definitely a difference in picture quality (and I love HD), but Pumpy's take on the picture quality is shared by many average Joe's and Jane's. I'm thinking another 5 frickin' years before HDTVs are "common" in households. Let's also not forget that while HDTVs continue to come down in price, you still have to get the frickin' HD set top box for cable or dish (and that just pushes the affordability way out there).

Originally Posted by MattJones4Heisman

For the record Ive had an HDTV for over a year and have never seen one HD image on the thing. The hassle and cost of receiving the programming is the problem here. The TV itself was just $100 more than the non HD version we were going to buy last year so we bought it just in case. Not worth it to get programming yet.

I see both of your points, but it depends on where you're from. For example, Cablevision here in Jersey and NY actually does something right when it comes to spreading HD...all you need is a different cable box to get the HD channels, and it's the same cost to lease the box monthly as a standard one. The HD channels are free once you have the box. I'm almost positive that Time Warner (NYC as well as other surrounding areas) has either the same deal, or one that delivers HD channels cheaply. Could other highly populated cities have similar deals?

Also, I'm curious...what do industry people consider "good enough penetration" of HDTVs into the market? I think it's going to be hard for that number to get high since most people, once they do make the plunge for that expensive TV, will only have 1 out of the 4 TVs in their house be of the HD variety.

[MJ4H]

To watch HD content here I would have to upgrade my Dish box which costs MONTHLY, then pay for content on top of that. I am not willing to do that. I don't like TV that much.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Matt is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. BR and HD-DVD are niche products at best. And will be gone by way of the dodo bird in about 5+years.

[Daimyo]

Most people don't realize it, but most LCDs you buy today likely have a QAM tuner built in and you can just plug regular cable in and get all the broadcast networks (NBC, CBS, ABC, and PBS at a minimum) in HD for no extra cost over what you pay for SD cable. You can pretty easily find a good 32" LCD like this for around $650.

[Deattribution]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

Matt is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. BR and HD-DVD are niche products at best. And will be gone by way of the dodo bird in about 5+years.

What does paying for HD channels have to do with Blu-ray and HD-DVDs? That's like saying DVDs were going to fail because not everyone subscribed to cable.

They have nothing to do with one another, and as hdtvs continue to drop in price, the formats will continue to grow.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Deattribution

What does paying for HD channels have to do with Blu-ray and HD-DVDs? That's like saying DVDs were going to fail because not everyone subscribed to cable.

They have nothing to do with one another, and as hdtvs continue to drop in price, the formats will continue to grow.

The number of households with HD TVs seems to still be fairly small. HD TV programming is likely to encourage people to buy the TVs more than HD-DVDs will.

[Deattribution]

Originally Posted by BrianD

The number of households with HD TVs seems to still be fairly small. HD TV programming is likely to encourage people to buy the TVs more than HD-DVDs will.

Price of TVs will encourage them more than anything, a large portion (atleast several million) of people already get reasonably priced HD programming, where they rent the box and get free programming.

Cable has never really been a deciding factor in any era concerning tv purchases, your most watched programming (basic/local) is already free and availiable in digital and HD quality with just a home antenna.

edit to add - if you have a tuner built in, or purchase a box top turner of course - which ideally if youre purchasing a tv you'd look into that before hand.

[Easy Mac]

Most people don't know about the antenna option.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by Deattribution

What does paying for HD channels have to do with Blu-ray and HD-DVDs? That's like saying DVDs were going to fail because not everyone subscribed to cable.

They have nothing to do with one another, and as hdtvs continue to drop in price, the formats will continue to grow.

If you read my above post you would know. Because HD programming is expensive is why people wouldn't buy an HDTV regardless of price. Without the TV, no need for BR or HD-DVD. And as time goes by before HDTV is commonly adopted, no need for DVDs of any kind due to internet/PPV purchase. And you comparison is wrong because people already had SDTVs when DVD came about.