Blu-ray/HD-DVD format war discussion thread....... [Archive]

Mizzou B-ball fan

05-09-2007, 10:27 AM

You love busting the 360's balls don't you? :)

Talk about the great games on the ps3 will ya?

I think it's a significant development, don't you? This final move is very important for Sony's bottom line as they're likely to become the sole HD media format at this point. This is what Sony wanted to accomplish when it hatched the idea of putting a Blu-ray player in the PS3. They literally put all their eggs in one basket. If they would have lost this format war, they would have been in a heap of trouble.

Now that they have likely won the HD format war, the PS3 now becomes a great value. This Christmas, you can get a Blu-ray player for $300 or you can pick up a PS3 and have a gaming console as well for $300 more. Toss in price cuts that are likely next year and it becomes even a better value.

The next question is whether Microsoft will relent and create Blu-ray add-on drives for the 360. Not sure it would look that good for them to basically abandon the HD-DVD add-on owners and create another drive that people will have to pay another $200 to buy. It will be an interesting situation to watch.

KWhit

05-09-2007, 10:38 AM

the PS3 now becomes a great value

I just choked on my coffee.

MizzouRah

05-09-2007, 10:50 AM

MJ4H

05-09-2007, 10:58 AM

Toshiba should decapitate a goat.

Logan

05-09-2007, 10:59 AM

Funny, about two weeks ago I read something that claimed it spelled the end for Blu-ray.

Greyroofoo

05-09-2007, 11:09 AM

Microsoft wins either way because they partly own the compression algorithm Blu-Ray and HD-DVD uses.

Mustang

05-09-2007, 11:09 AM

Travis

05-09-2007, 11:11 AM

Either way, this is a race that will have big implications inside of what, 2-3 years when every tv has to be HD ready/compatible. The whole PS3 race aside, no matter what the drive behind it, the winner of the HD format war is going to make a mark, and because MS backed HD-DVD, it will also affect the new consoles. Sure, PS3 doesn't have the library that the 360 does, but by Christmas, it's title list will be much more attractive to new customer's than it is right now. Not many people (granted some will of course) are going to care that much about any of the titles on the market now, it'll be what is out between late summer and Christmas that will dominate, so it'll depend which console is smarter with their prices by then. If the PS3 brings out an advanced unit (bigger HD, whatever) at the current top end price and drops the 60gig model $100-$150 (or even does this without a new top end model on the market) they'll be competitive. Add in build in blu ray and it is a factor if they can also win this (HD-DVD/Blu Ray) race.

Certainly not out of the woods, but given the ineptness of how they've handled things to now from a PS3 perspective, the fact that a couple right decisions at this point could get them back in the race isn't something to be discounted.

Greyroofoo

05-09-2007, 11:11 AM

The picture quality alone is enough for me.

Much much bigger leap than it was between VHS and DVD.

Mizzou B-ball fan

05-09-2007, 11:12 AM

I still could care less about HD-DVD and or Blue Ray. To me, it's all about the games and the 360 is so far ahead it's not even funny.

We'll have to revisit this later on to see the real implications.

Absolutely. If you solely want a game console, the 360 is the better option at this point, assuming you purchase the Premium system. The Elite is a bit pricey for what you're getting.

Travis

05-09-2007, 11:13 AM

I just don't get what I might be missing. VHS to DVD, that was a huge leap. More stuff, didn't have to rewind, great picture but, with HD-DVD and Blu-ray.. eh.. I just don't see a need to run out to buy one.

Not necessarily on the subject of video games, but watching sports on hd compared to standard def is an amazing difference. I've got a couple movies on Blu Ray (Resident Evil 2 coming to mind) where the difference from standard DVD to BR as far as colors/definition/clarity is equally as great.

Game wise, it's harder for me to compare as I went from a game cube on an old 52" projection TV with a lot of blue bleed to a PS3 on a new 37" HD LCD, so yeah, it looks fantastic, but not an apples to apples to comparison at all.

Mizzou B-ball fan

05-09-2007, 11:15 AM

I just don't get what I might be missing. VHS to DVD, that was a huge leap. More stuff, didn't have to rewind, great picture but, with HD-DVD and Blu-ray.. eh.. I just don't see a need to run out to buy one.

If you've every watched a movie on HD media, there's a big difference in quality. Granted, some people don't watch movies often enough to make it worth it. If you spend time at home watching movies, it's a must. The quality of the picture is a big step up.

Mizzou B-ball fan

05-09-2007, 11:16 AM

Funny, about two weeks ago I read something that claimed it spelled the end for Blu-ray.

Interesting. I have no idea why that would be the case. Do you have a link to the article?

Mustang

05-09-2007, 11:25 AM

If you've every watched a movie on HD media, there's a big difference in quality. Granted, some people don't watch movies often enough to make it worth it. If you spend time at home watching movies, it's a must. The quality of the picture is a big step up.

I'll have to try to watch a movie then in HD. The only thing I've ever seen are 'samples' at Electronics stores that just blantantly distorted DVD to pump up HD-DVD & Blu-Ray quality to the point of being comical. Here is DVD (show picture that looks like it was shot through a shower door) and new HD-DVD!!!! (show clear picture) So, left more of a 'ya.. whatever' feeling with me.

I do have HD TV though so, not disputing that quality.

Atocep

05-09-2007, 11:27 AM

Now that they have likely won the HD format war, the PS3 now becomes a great value.

I fail to see this logic. Most people don't want a blu-ray player right now. Even if HD-DVD were discontinued tomorrow, that fact wouldn't change. The market hasn't shown that its ready to support either. DVD is going to continue to dwarf the sales of both of these formats combined for the forseeable future.

This is a small win for Sony. Not necessarily a win for the PS3.

Butter

05-09-2007, 11:28 AM

Mods, can we change this thread title to "April Console Sales Numbers", kthx.

spleen1015

05-09-2007, 11:29 AM

The PS3 will catch the 360 if/when it has games that will sell the system.

Blu-ray isn't going to help. If it was, it would have already.

Mizzou B-ball fan

05-09-2007, 11:40 AM

I fail to see this logic. Most people don't want a blu-ray player right now. Even if HD-DVD were discontinued tomorrow, that fact wouldn't change. The market hasn't shown that its ready to support either. DVD is going to continue to dwarf the sales of both of these formats combined for the forseeable future.

This is a small win for Sony. Not necessarily a win for the PS3.

Agreed. At this point, it's not a big shift in the market. 2008 and 2009 will be the years where the big change will likely occur. There's going to be a big push of HDTV's next year as the 2009 conversion date to all digital gets closer. HDTV's and associated media are going to be pushed really hard this holiday and in the 2008 holiday season and you can be sure that the big box places like Best Buy will have their sales people fully stocked with all of the usual sales pitches.

Also, you're likely to see the PS3 at a $499 or lower price point in 2008 and stand-alone Blu-ray players in the sub-200 range. That's when you're going to see a bigger adoption rate and where Sony's gamble could pay big dividends.

Tyrith

05-09-2007, 11:41 AM

DVD to HD and VHS to DVD are not really comparable situations, and everyone should stop acting like they are. VHS had serious technical issues that made everyone want to upgrade to a much more user friendly disc based system with significant alacrity. There's no such incentive with HD. Further, you didn't have to buy a new TV to make your new DVD player work, unless your TV was 10-15 years old and you needed to upgrade into the world of AV cables. Overall, HD is much more of a "luxury" upgrade than going to DVD.

Now, the PS3 is going to get some extra sales because it is a next gen DVD player. However, the timing is all wrong for it to use that capacity to boost it into the PS2 sales range. When it came out the PS2 was timed perfectly and priced perfectly to take advantage of the market -- people really wanted to upgrade away from VHS, it came out at a price point people were used to paying for video game systems and not a crazy 500+ number, and the PS2 didn't have any real competition in the gaming market; at the time Sony was the champ and it didn't look like anyone was going to be able to fight them anytime soon. The PS3 is in a completely different situation, where it is having to fight for every inch of market share, and being the option with fewer games and a higher price point it's going to have a hard time ripping users away from the XBox right now.

Mizzou B-ball fan

05-09-2007, 11:45 AM

Blu-ray isn't going to help. If it was, it would have already.

Sorry, but that's REALLY a short-sighted statement. Sony knew that the dividends for their gamble wouldn't pay off for 2-3 years as far as Blu-ray goes. Until the media gets at a price point where it becomes accessable to the general public, you can't really declare that at all. 6 months into the media's life cycle is not a good place to do that. DVD's were selling at an even slower rate at this point in the life cycle. Once the prices for the players came down to an acceptable level (due to cost efficiencies in manufacturing) after a year or two, they sold like hotcakes.

Logan

05-09-2007, 11:46 AM

Interesting. I have no idea why that would be the case. Do you have a link to the article?

It was something like a store deciding to go with HD over BR...more of the bullshit that's being spewed in this rumor.

As Atocep said, this isn't a simple one versus the other "war." Neither wins until they can go up against SD DVDs, and that is a long, long way from happening. It's not a VHS vs DVD debate; it's DVDs of excellent quality, of which people already own multiple players and a large catalog of their favorite movies, going up against DVDs of a greater excellent quality, that require very expensive new players and upgrading their collections.

That's why HD will not simply go away because a studio has dropped its HD exclusivity. It has great enough penetration already to survive, especially if they can be the ones to come to market with more affordable players first (and obviously they're much closer than BR is now).

When BR came out and it wasn't doing hot, it was "just wait until the PS3 launches...that will end the war." It didn't. The PS3 isn't going to be the deciding factor in this. A typical family is not thinking about whatever "excellent value" the PS3 might be when deciding if they want to spend $1000 on upgrading their DVD collection, which is already of high quality.

spleen1015

05-09-2007, 11:50 AM

Sorry, but that's REALLY a short-sighted statement. Sony knew that the dividends for their gamble wouldn't pay off for 2-3 years as far as Blu-ray goes. Until the media gets at a price point where it becomes accessable to the general public, you can't really declare that at all. 6 months into the media's life cycle is not a good place to do that. DVD's were selling at an even slower rate at this point in the life cycle. Once the prices for the players came down to an acceptable level (due to cost efficiencies in manufacturing) after a year or two, they sold like hotcakes.

It will pay off 2-3 years down the road because that's when they will have it priced reasonably and have some games that are worth playing.

Travis

05-09-2007, 11:51 AM

Further, you didn't have to buy a new TV to make your new DVD player work, unless your TV was 10-15 years old and you needed to upgrade into the world of AV cables. Overall, HD is much more of a "luxury" upgrade than going to DVD.

But, and this is where I think it was a move made ahead of time, anybody who wants to watch TV past 2010 (or 2009, whenever the US switchover is), will have to buy a TV that has the capability to take advantage of this technology. Yes, DVD upscalers will also be all over and DVD's are not going to die, but the forced switch to HDTV is going to happen. Give them an option of buying a DVD player for $80 or a BR player with DVD upscaling for $200 and the market will begin to shift. Especially if the price of BR movies themselves start hitting the $20-$25 mark (my numbers could be out a bit as I'm used to Canadian pricing).

Again, not a deal clincher for the PS3 by any means if BR is declared the winner today, and maybe they tried to make their move a bit too early (I personally don't think so), but attempting to corner the HD market with a forced switch on the horizon is probably one of the few smart things they've done in the past year or so.

moriarty

05-09-2007, 11:54 AM

The picture quality alone is enough for me.

Much much bigger leap than it was between VHS and DVD.

Wow, you're entitled to your own perceptions but based on my own experiences this isn't even close. VHS to DVD was a huge leap.

There's been several 'blind' tests where users had a hard time distinguishing between an upconverting DVD player and a HD DVD (this may get better as HD DVD players mature). I doubt anyone had problems distinguishing between VHS and DVD.

Pyser

05-09-2007, 11:55 AM

Either way, this is a race that will have big implications inside of what, 2-3 years when every tv has to be HD ready/compatible.

Just wanted to point out cable is going all DIGITAL by 2008/2009. there is no mandate for anyone to switch to hd ever at this point.

Logan

05-09-2007, 11:55 AM

The picture quality alone is enough for me.

Much much bigger leap than it was between VHS and DVD.

IT'S OPPOSITE DAY!!!111!!1!11

Mizzou B-ball fan

05-09-2007, 11:55 AM

As Atocep said, this isn't a simple one versus the other "war." Neither wins until they can go up against SD DVDs, and that is a long, long way from happening. It's not a VHS vs DVD debate; it's DVDs of excellent quality, of which people already own multiple players and a large catalog of their favorite movies, going up against DVDs of a greater excellent quality, that require very expensive new players and upgrading their collections.

At this point, I'd certainly agree with that. This is something that won't fully create any type of major market forces for another 1-2 years.

That's why HD will not simply go away because a studio has dropped its HD exclusivity. It has great enough penetration already to survive, especially if they can be the ones to come to market with more affordable players first (and obviously they're much closer than BR is now).

Both players are going to have stand-along players in the sub-$300 price range by the holiday season. Also, given that all of the major movies will be on Blu-ray and only a portion of them will be on HD-DVD, I'd be hard pressed as a consumer to say that I'm better off buying a HD-DVD if I'm forced to choose.

When BR came out and it wasn't doing hot, it was "just wait until the PS3 launches...that will end the war." It didn't.

Really? While the overall sales numbers are relatively small when compared to the DVD sales, it has been noted in multiple articles that the Blu-ray Disks are outselling HD-DVD's at a minimum of a 2:1 margin at this point. Before the PS3 release, Blu-ray was getting beat pretty soundly by the HD-DVD format. I'm not sure how you could attribute that to anything other than the PS3.

Logan

05-09-2007, 11:58 AM

Really? While the overall sales numbers are relatively small when compared to the DVD sales, it has been noted in multiple articles that the Blu-ray Disks are outselling HD-DVD's at a minimum of a 2:1 margin at this point. Before the PS3 release, Blu-ray was getting beat pretty soundly by the HD-DVD format. I'm not sure how you could attribute that to anything other than the PS3.

That's what I meant when I said "end" the war. Winning at this point doesn't mean it's going to conquer the regular DVD format.

spleen1015

05-09-2007, 12:00 PM

Mizzou B-ball fan

05-09-2007, 12:04 PM

That's what I meant when I said "end" the war. Winning at this point doesn't mean it's going to conquer the regular DVD format.

Yes, but it's not an 'either/or' situation. You don't have to buy the new HD disk. HD media players are somewhat like a console in that they are backward compatible and even 'upconvert' the picture. There is a significant increase in appearance of the DVD disks when you upconvert the picture. So you can keep your old collection of DVD's while buying the newer movies in the HD format.

Now I will grant you that there's no reason to go out and buy a HD player right now for $600 or more. It's simply too much. But later in the year and early next year as the prices fall to the $200-300 range, it becomes a much better value with no reason to rebuy your entire collection. This is an advantage that you didn't have with the VHS/DVD situation because you couldn't play your old tapes in the new player unless you had a VHS/DVD combo player.

Mizzou B-ball fan

05-09-2007, 12:05 PM

This can't be your lovefest for the PS3 talking.

What would you attribute that large turnaround in sales to?

stevew

05-09-2007, 12:06 PM

Mizzou B-ball fan

05-09-2007, 12:09 PM

If the wholesale tv prices continue to head down at the same rate, by next spring a 50" projection will comfortably be under a grand, and a 32" LCD will probably be 6-700(for a top name one) at the very most

Even HD front projectors are becoming a very affordable option where you can have a monster picture at a reasonable price. I bought a 720p/1080i projector last month for under $800. By the holiday season, it will likely be in the $600-700 range. If you have a big enough room, it's a great deal.

spleen1015

05-09-2007, 12:15 PM

What would you attribute that large turnaround in sales to?

The format being on the market longer? Better movies coming out in the format?

stevew

05-09-2007, 12:15 PM

Eh, for those, man, the Bulb costs are so expensive that unless you're a baller it's a significant chunk of change every 2000 hours.

Deattribution

05-09-2007, 12:22 PM

The format being on the market longer? Better movies coming out in the format?

The greatest movies in the world released on the format do not mean anything unless you have a player to play the movies on - and right now the PS3 is the smartest choice for a blu-ray player.

Saying the PS3 had little or no impact on the sales of blu-ray disc is ridiculous, No matter what anyone thinks of Sony - this was apart of their plan, and even if it's not working on the grand scheme they thought it would the ball is still moving.

ISiddiqui

05-09-2007, 12:27 PM

Just wanted to point out cable is going all DIGITAL by 2008/2009. there is no mandate for anyone to switch to hd ever at this point.

Yep, I wanted to point this out as well... digital doesn't mean HD ready or compatible or anything. Just that the signal has to be in digital format.

Mizzou B-ball fan

05-09-2007, 12:28 PM

The greatest movies in the world released on the format do not mean anything unless you have a player to play the movies on - and right now the PS3 is the smartest choice for a blu-ray player.

Saying the PS3 had little or no impact on the sales of blu-ray disc is ridiculous, No matter what anyone thinks of Sony - this was apart of their plan, and even if it's not working on the grand scheme they thought it would the ball is still moving.

Agreed. The only movies that weren't on Blu-ray were the Universal Studios movies. All of the rest of the movies have been on Blu-ray both before and after the PS3 came out. If the quality of the movies was an issue, HD-DVD should have seen a similar spike in sales when the newer ones came out. That has not happened. In fact, the HD-DVD sales rates have actually gone down.

moriarty

05-09-2007, 12:30 PM

The greatest movies in the world released on the format do not mean anything unless you have a player to play the movies on - and right now the PS3 is the smartest choice for a blu-ray player.

Saying the PS3 had little or no impact on the sales of blu-ray disc is ridiculous, No matter what anyone thinks of Sony - this was apart of their plan, and even if it's not working on the grand scheme they thought it would the ball is still moving.

I would say the PS3 has definitely had an impact on penetration of blue ray DVD players. I'm not sure enough PS3 owners are actively buying the discs to say it has had a major impact on disc sales. I think both formats have struggled selling discs.

Mizzou B-ball fan

05-09-2007, 12:42 PM

I would say the PS3 has definitely had an impact on penetration of blue ray DVD players. I'm not sure enough PS3 owners are actively buying the discs to say it has had a major impact on disc sales. I think both formats have struggled selling discs.

Yes, but penetration of the players has to be your primary focus as a company. Without players, no one is going to buy the discs. Eventually, as with any other product, the larger your installed base is, the more discs you sell.

Travis

05-09-2007, 12:49 PM

Yep, I wanted to point this out as well... digital doesn't mean HD ready or compatible or anything. Just that the signal has to be in digital format.

My bad, I had thought from articles I had read that you'd have to have at least HD ready tv's at that point. Not something I've dug too far into as I already have HD, good to point out for sure.

I am curious to see over the next 2-3 years what the percentage of HD compatible TV's to non HD units sold will be. Even without a forced turnover, I can't imagine that a lot of first or second tv's (living room/bedroom) in homes won't be HD ready (guessing the smaller kitchen type tv's will be the last to see a significant changeover, though even prices there appear to be getting better). Still a rapidly expanding market that should only accelerate.

KWhit

05-09-2007, 12:50 PM

Mizzou B-ball fan

05-09-2007, 01:02 PM

Sounds like a good strategy for the 360 and the wii.

It's a good strategy for any product. Business 101.

KWhit

05-09-2007, 01:04 PM

It's a good strategy for any product. Business 101.

Thanks for the lesson.

Mizzou B-ball fan

05-09-2007, 01:05 PM

Thanks for the lesson.

I guess I'm not sure why you even mentioned the Wii. It has no relevance to the HD format war.

Mizzou B-ball fan

05-09-2007, 01:10 PM

I am curious to see over the next 2-3 years what the percentage of HD compatible TV's to non HD units sold will be. Even without a forced turnover, I can't imagine that a lot of first or second tv's (living room/bedroom) in homes won't be HD ready (guessing the smaller kitchen type tv's will be the last to see a significant changeover, though even prices there appear to be getting better). Still a rapidly expanding market that should only accelerate.

I think the vast majority of TV's next year and going forward will be HDTV. The SDTV's will remain in the market just because people won't get rid of them. By next year, the prices on these HDTV's are going to be pretty affordable to the point where they will be the choice of most consumers.

KWhit

05-09-2007, 01:12 PM

I guess I'm not sure why you even mentioned the Wii. It has no relevance to the HD format war.

I stumbled into the thread high on muscatine wine. What do I know?

moriarty

05-09-2007, 01:14 PM

Yes, but penetration of the players has to be your primary focus as a company. Without players, no one is going to buy the discs. Eventually, as with any other product, the larger your installed base is, the more discs you sell.

Oh I agree with that.

As far as it being a good strategy though, I think the book is still out on that one. It all depends on how much money Sony can recoup from having BluRay adopted as a standard. In the meantime, they're taking a bath with the PS3 ... and there's at least one ex-Sony executive who would probably say it wasn't the best strategy.

Mizzou B-ball fan

05-09-2007, 01:20 PM

Oh I agree with that.

As far as it being a good strategy though, I think the book is still out on that one. It all depends on how much money Sony can recoup from having BluRay adopted as a standard. In the meantime, they're taking a bath with the PS3 ... and there's at least one ex-Sony executive who would probably say it wasn't the best strategy.

Certainly, it's a risk that hasn't panned out initially. Sony's going to lose a lot of money over this first year.

I would disagree with your assertion that the ex-Sony executive is the one who thinks it wasn't the best strategy. Assuming you're talking about Crazy Ken K., he's likely the only one who still thinks it WAS a good strategy. Hence the reason that he was moved to a different division and then decided to 'retire'.

Mizzou B-ball fan

05-09-2007, 01:21 PM

I stumbled into the thread high on muscatine wine. What do I know?

Mmmmmmmmmm........wine.

moriarty

05-09-2007, 01:23 PM

Certainly, it's a risk that hasn't panned out initially. Sony's going to lose a lot of money over this first year.

I would disagree with your assertion that the ex-Sony executive is the one who thinks it wasn't the best strategy. Assuming you're talking about Crazy Ken K., he's likely the only one who still thinks it WAS a good strategy. Hence the reason that he was moved to a different division and then decided to 'retire'.

If you think he voluntarily "retired" I've got a bridge to sell you, as I think we can agree he was forced out due to the disaster that is the PS3. But my point (tongue in cheek) was that the strategy cost him his job, so while I no doubt believe that he thought it was a good strategy, he might be rethinking it due to the shame (and loss of job) that it created.

Tyrith

05-09-2007, 01:24 PM

moriarty

05-09-2007, 01:32 PM

If stand alone Blu-ray players are going to be 300 bucks by Christmas...and the PS3 is going to be 500 dollars...then doesn't the PS3 lose a lot of the pricing power that would have potentially made it a better option for people just looking to buy movie players and not gaming systems? AT that point the PS3 is so much more expensive than a standalone player that it becomes prohibitive. Directly or indirectly most of the PS3's problems can be traced back to the fact that it's too expensive.

I think the thinking goes is that the PS3 (Sony) essentially gave away Blu Ray players to help them get the highest penetration and win the format wars. Since Sony owns (at least some part) of the Blu-Ray technology they can collect licensing fees for years to come if the technology takes off.

As far as other blu-ray players undercutting the PS3, it really is irrelevant for Sony if (and I dont' think it's been decided yet) they win the format war. The PS3 sales is a separate problem for them.

Mizzou B-ball fan

05-09-2007, 01:32 PM

If stand alone Blu-ray players are going to be 300 bucks by Christmas...and the PS3 is going to be 500 dollars...then doesn't the PS3 lose a lot of the pricing power that would have potentially made it a better option for people just looking to buy movie players and not gaming systems? AT that point the PS3 is so much more expensive than a standalone player that it becomes prohibitive. Directly or indirectly most of the PS3's problems can be traced back to the fact that it's too expensive.

It's too expensive for a gaming system right now, but it's the best deal available for a Blu-ray player. The pricing of the player isn't going to affect much. If you don't want a gaming system and you're looking for a player, the stand along is a relatively good deal at $300. If you're a gamer and you want a Blu-ray player, there's no reason you shouldn't get the PS3 for only $200 more.

stevew

05-09-2007, 01:34 PM

I am curious to see over the next 2-3 years what the percentage of HD compatible TV's to non HD units sold will be. Even without a forced turnover, I can't imagine that a lot of first or second tv's (living room/bedroom) in homes won't be HD ready (guessing the smaller kitchen type tv's will be the last to see a significant changeover, though even prices there appear to be getting better). Still a rapidly expanding market that should only accelerate.

26" "bedroom" type TV's are way too expensive at this point, and would need to significantly drop in price if people are going to get them in droves. You're still near a grand on those....ideally the "better" brands would need to get into the 400 dollar range for a 26" before most people would consider getting one. We rarely sell anything smaller than 32" at work(primarly 40-42" range), occasionally a few off brand 20" sets when they go on significant sale.

Mizzou B-ball fan

05-09-2007, 01:56 PM

"Since cable and satellite TV services use a different method to distribute their programming, you will not see any change if you get all of your TV from those sources."

That's kind of a half-truth. It's correct that you will be able to watch the channels still off your cable or satellite feeds on your standard TV's. The problem is that most of the channels on those two types of providers will be digital channels. So if you have a standard TV, you'll be watching a distinctly smaller picture due to the black bars that will constantly be at the top and bottom of your TV screen. So while you may have a 20" SDTV, the image size will likely be a few inches smaller than 20".

ISiddiqui

05-09-2007, 02:12 PM

That's kind of a half-truth. It's correct that you will be able to watch the channels still off your cable or satellite feeds on your standard TV's. The problem is that most of the channels on those two types of providers will be digital channels. So if you have a standard TV, you'll be watching a distinctly smaller picture due to the black bars that will constantly be at the top and bottom of your TV screen. So while you may have a 20" SDTV, the image size will likely be a few inches smaller than 20".

Um... you do realize that digital channels can come in 4:3 resolution right? Digital channels will not have the "black bars" on them on a standard definition TV. They didn't when I had a SDTV and digital cable.

Mizzou B-ball fan

05-09-2007, 02:18 PM

Um... you do realize that digital channels can come in 4:3 resolution right? Digital channels will not have the "black bars" on them on a standard definition TV. They didn't when I had a SDTV and digital cable.

True. You'll lose some of the picture, but you can get it 4:3. So you have a smaller image if you go the 16:9 route or you'll lose the left and right sides of the image if you go 4:3. It's a choose your poison situation.

twothree

05-09-2007, 02:25 PM

True. You'll lose some of the picture, but you can get it 4:3. So you have a smaller image if you go the 16:9 route or you'll lose the left and right sides of the image if you go 4:3. It's a choose your poison situation.

You'd like to think that, wouldn't you? You've beaten my giant, which means you're exceptionally strong, so you could've put the poison in your own goblet, trusting on your strength to save you, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But, you've also bested my Spaniard, which means you must have studied, and in studying you must have learned that man is mortal, so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

dawgfan

05-09-2007, 02:44 PM

I'm curious on the Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD disk sales numbers - first off, how many sales are we talking about compared to regular DVD's. Secondly, wasn't a copy of "Casino Royale" being included with PS3 purchases for a while, and if so, how many of those count against those Blu-Ray disk sales numbers?

14ers

05-09-2007, 02:58 PM

Interesting. I have no idea why that would be the case. Do you have a link to the article?
It was an article about the porn industy. They did not like blu-ray format because of its initial cost to make a disc and how hard it was to copy blu-ray discs.

I wonder if Microsoft has the balls to give the finger to every 360 owner that has purchased a HD-DVD player and come out with a blu-ray addon for the 360?

Also, I was a person who based some of the deciosion to buy a PS3 player on the fact that it had a built in blu-ray player, and I could rent blu-ray movies from NetFlix. Anyone who is trying to tell you they can't see a difference between the old DVD format and blu-ray should be immediately sent to an eye doctor.:)

spleen1015

05-09-2007, 02:59 PM

ISiddiqui

05-09-2007, 03:06 PM

True. You'll lose some of the picture, but you can get it 4:3. So you have a smaller image if you go the 16:9 route or you'll lose the left and right sides of the image if you go 4:3. It's a choose your poison situation.

Err.. no.

The digital channels I get (Comcast, but I believe all cable companies do it similar), EXCEPT for the High Def channels, are ALL broadcast in 4:3 aspect ratio. ONLY the High Def channels are broadcast in 16:9.

So, if I watch Fox Soccer Channel (digital channel), its broadcast in 4:3, and I'm not losing any of the picture if I'm on an SD TV.

Daimyo

05-09-2007, 03:24 PM

Pyser

05-09-2007, 03:34 PM

True. You'll lose some of the picture, but you can get it 4:3. So you have a smaller image if you go the 16:9 route or you'll lose the left and right sides of the image if you go 4:3. It's a choose your poison situation.

digital does not equal high definition. 90% of "digital" is in native 4:3. only high def is true 16:9. just admit you dont know what youre talking about.

Eaglesfan27

05-09-2007, 03:35 PM

I wonder if Microsoft has the balls to give the finger to every 360 owner that has purchased a HD-DVD player and come out with a blu-ray addon for the 360?

Microsoft has said all along in several interviews that if Blu-Ray won, they were prepared to come out with a Blu-Ray addon.

Mizzou B-ball fan

05-10-2007, 06:43 AM

digital does not equal high definition. 90% of "digital" is in native 4:3. only high def is true 16:9. just admit you dont know what youre talking about.

I understand perfectly well that digital is not the same as HD. Digital has to do with the signal while HD has to do with the definition (i.e. pixels) on the screen.

Mizzou B-ball fan

05-10-2007, 06:48 AM

This is a small battle won for Blu-Ray, but its still a drop in the bucket. If Wal-Mart announces tomorrow they will exclusively sell HD-DVD, the war would be over in one swoop. Its still way too early to call this one.

To follow through on your thought.........

Why would Wal-Mart (or any other retailer) go exclusively to a medium that doesn't offer a relatively large portion of the new releases currently hitting the market?

The only reason it's too early to call the format war is because it's only a rumor at this point. If/when they announce that Universal will be on Blu-ray, it's over. The HD-DVD would have no competitve advantage at that point and would quickly lose shelf space. The installed base at this point is so lopsided that retail outlets would pretty quickly convert to Blu-ray only.

stevew

05-10-2007, 06:53 AM

Talking about shelf space anyways, I don't think I see BR's or HDDVD's anywhere right now on the shelfs. We have a few of each at work, but they are mainly there to get stolen.

Mizzou B-ball fan

05-10-2007, 07:09 AM

Talking about shelf space anyways, I don't think I see BR's or HDDVD's anywhere right now on the shelfs. We have a few of each at work, but they are mainly there to get stolen.

Yeah, it's pretty small at this point. Best Buy has a shelf section 6-7 shelves high and about 8 feet wide for Blu-ray and the same for HD-DVD at this point. Most people simply aren't buying them in those places due to the high price point. Amazon has 50% off on Blu-ray movies here and there. That's the best way to buy them. Also, I have 4 friends with the PS3. All of us use our PS3 to watch BR movies, but we rent them. It's a much cheaper way to get all the quality of the HD movies at a much lower price.

Mizzou B-ball fan

05-10-2007, 07:19 AM

Ouch. Another tough blow for the HD-DVD format. Multiple sites are reporting that Star Wars Trilogy HD movies will be Blu-ray only. These are one of the few movies that a lot of people will rebuy on the new format.

Here's the links for the movies on Amazon......

http://www.amazon.com/Star-Wars-Trilogy-Episodes-I/dp/B000PMG16U/ref=sr_1_2/104-9129747-4714314?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1178799361&sr=8-2

http://www.amazon.com/Star-Wars-Trilogy-Episodes-IV/dp/B000PMLFRA/ref=sr_1_1/104-9129747-4714314?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1178799361&sr=8-1

TroyF

05-10-2007, 08:02 AM

I guess I'm not sure why you even mentioned the Wii. It has no relevance to the HD format war.

He wasn't referring to the HD format war there. He was referring to your comment that the more installed base you have, the more discs you sell. Meaning that the more Wii's and 360's there are than the PS3, the more gaming discs those two consoles will sell.

I think Blu-Ray wins the format war but I don't think it makes a bit of difference for a couple of years. By the time it does make a difference, Blu-Ray players will be a lot cheaper than they are now. The PS3 improved the install base of Blu-Ray and maybe it did win the format war for Sony.

But they alienated a lot of their fans (not all obviously) and got their asses handed to them hard in the first few months of the gaming battle to do that. If they recover and start dominating in a couple of years with the PS3, all is forgiven and they were right. If the Wii and 360 continue to obliterate them, it was a horrific decision for their gaming line, allowing not one but two competitors to leapfrog them and taking something they OWNED and making it a battle.

Mizzou B-ball fan

05-10-2007, 08:17 AM

But they alienated a lot of their fans (not all obviously) and got their asses handed to them hard in the first few months of the gaming battle to do that. If they recover and start dominating in a couple of years with the PS3, all is forgiven and they were right. If the Wii and 360 continue to obliterate them, it was a horrific decision for their gaming line, allowing not one but two competitors to leapfrog them and taking something they OWNED and making it a battle.

Yes, but here's the thing. If BR becomes the market standard, the amount of money they make on that media alone will make Sony VERY wealthy. You don't have to look any further than the stock market yesterday to realize what impact the investors believe this announcement had for Sony. The stock jumped roughly 2% higher after the rumors of Universal dropping the exclusive agreement hit the web. For Sony as a whole, this would be huge.

gstelmack

05-10-2007, 08:27 AM

Yes, but here's the thing. If BR becomes the market standard, the amount of money they make on that media alone will make Sony VERY wealthy. You don't have to look any further than the stock market yesterday to realize what impact the investors believe this announcement had for Sony. The stock jumped roughly 2% higher after the rumors of Universal dropping the exclusive agreement hit the web. For Sony as a whole, this would be huge.

But the point is: will the PS3 truly be the reason for Blu-Ray winning? Or will Blu-Ray have won for other reasons, and they set back their PS3 line by a year or more for no good reason?

stevew

05-10-2007, 08:30 AM

I'd have to do the math on it, but to "win" the BR war would probably net a ton more profit than they would ever make on a console, assuming that BR replaces DVD's within a few years.

ISiddiqui

05-10-2007, 08:52 AM

But the point is: will the PS3 truly be the reason for Blu-Ray winning? Or will Blu-Ray have won for other reasons, and they set back their PS3 line by a year or more for no good reason?

The million dollar question... I think, looking at everything that has happened, that Blu-Ray would have won regardless of the PS3.

Mizzou B-ball fan

05-10-2007, 08:54 AM

I'd have to do the math on it, but to "win" the BR war would probably net a ton more profit than they would ever make on a console, assuming that BR replaces DVD's within a few years.

Yes, that would be the logical next step to this argument. The profit that Sony will make on BR if it becomes the HD standard would make video game profits look like crumbs on the ground. It's not even close.

Then the argument become 'Did Sony use the PS3 to win the format war without concern for the overall success of the console?'. I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case, however, the statement could also be made that the long-term success of the PS3 likely hinges on them winning the HD format war. The PS3 has its competitive advantage significantly reduced if BR does not become the HD stardard.

Bee

05-10-2007, 09:09 AM

I understand perfectly well that digital is not the same as HD. Digital has to do with the signal while HD has to do with the definition (i.e. pixels) on the screen.

You may understand the difference, but your posts sure make it look like you don't.

Bee

05-10-2007, 09:15 AM

But the point is: will the PS3 truly be the reason for Blu-Ray winning? Or will Blu-Ray have won for other reasons, and they set back their PS3 line by a year or more for no good reason?

I think it's too soon to say what wins or how much impact the PS3 will have in the end, but looking at the numbers I think it's hard to discount the impact the PS3 has had so far. The last numbers I saw had total number of sales pretty even, but the BR discs have been outselling HD-DVD discs by about 2:1 since the PS3 release. That's a pretty significant push to catch up that BR got from what appears to be the PS3 release and they've now taken the lead. I think for that to change the HD-DVD backers are going to need a major push (like the Wal-Mart rumor that came out a month or so ago that was never confirmed).

TroyF

05-10-2007, 09:15 AM

The million dollar question... I think, looking at everything that has happened, that Blu-Ray would have won regardless of the PS3.

Bingo. This isn't a question of are they going to make millioins off the Blu-Ray market. The question is did they need to sacrifice the PS3 to do it.

I don't think they willingly did sacrifice the PS3, I think they just made a monster miscalculation. They assumed the success of the PS2 would mean they could do anything they wanted. It didn't work out and rather than alter their strategy, they made PR mistake after PR mistake to try and cover up that they'd made a blunder.

So if you feel they couldn't have won the Blu-Ray/HD-DVD battle without the PS3, then they made a good decision. If you feel they didn't need the PS3's help to win that war, they made a horrible decision that'll have long term consequences for a very profitable arm of the company.

If they recover and win the console war a couple of years from now, they win either way.

I don't think they needed the PS3 to win the format war and I don't think they have a chance in hell of winning the console war now, so I think they made a mistake. Just my opinion, nothing more.

Bee

05-10-2007, 09:22 AM

Yes, that would be the logical next step to this argument. The profit that Sony will make on BR if it becomes the HD standard would make video game profits look like crumbs on the ground. It's not even close.

Then the argument become 'Did Sony use the PS3 to win the format war without concern for the overall success of the console?'. I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case, however, the statement could also be made that the long-term success of the PS3 likely hinges on them winning the HD format war. The PS3 has its competitive advantage significantly reduced if BR does not become the HD stardard.

That's assuming either of the formats become mainstream. I've read several articles that have proposed neither will become mainstream and on-demand PPV type of distribution of HD movies will be what ends up winning out. I don't know if that will happen, but I can see it as a possibility.

Mizzou B-ball fan

05-10-2007, 09:43 AM

That's assuming either of the formats become mainstream. I've read several articles that have proposed neither will become mainstream and on-demand PPV type of distribution of HD movies will be what ends up winning out. I don't know if that will happen, but I can see it as a possibility.

I doubt that will happen quite yet. I do think that PPV distribution will have some of the market, but there are going to be just as many people that want large media disks that they can use to store movies. Blu-ray has plenty of room for HD format movies, so it will still play a major factor, whether it will be in the form of a disk from a movie company or a disk that the person burns copies of their movies on for later use. Sony makes money in either case.

Mizzou B-ball fan

05-10-2007, 09:45 AM

Looks like Universal is denying the rumor.

Craig Kornblau, the President of Universal Studios Home Entertainment contacted Engadget saying that the report from Heise is "totally false."

Mizzou B-ball fan

05-10-2007, 09:47 AM

Not sure how I missed this one. Blu-ray player is now available stand-alone for $299 from Pioneer.

Pioneer USA has officially announced the availability of the BDC-2202, a combo drive which will read Blu-ray discs (including movies) as well as read/write DVDs and CDs. The drive, which will be the first Blu-ray drive to not have burn capability, will retail for the ultra low cost of $299 when it hits store shelves in June, making it the cheapest Blu-ray drive on the market by a few hundred dollars.

The drive can read single layer Blu-ray media at up to 5X, and dual layer media at up to 2X. It will also come with all software necessary for the playback of Blu-ray material and writing of DVD/CD material. This drive is targeted at savvy computer users looking to easily increase the capability of their machines, as well as HTPC owners looking to jump into Blu-ray without paying for unused burning capability.

Mizzou B-ball fan

05-10-2007, 09:57 AM

Evidently, Sony plans to launch a major marketing push emphasizing the capabilities of the PS3 as a HD movie device.......

http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6439199.html

ISiddiqui

05-10-2007, 10:03 AM

Not sure how I missed this one. Blu-ray player is now available stand-alone for $299 from Pioneer.

Wow... that's impressive. It's that cheap because they took out the burning capabilities? That's all?

Eaglesfan27

05-10-2007, 10:16 AM

Wow... that's impressive. It's that cheap because they took out the burning capabilities? That's all?

That is impressive. I had been leaning towards asking for a PS3 for Christmas, primarily because of the Blu-Ray capabilities. However, if stand alone players of quality are available for 300 and under, I'm just going to ask for one of those unless the PS3 really steps up with some exclusive games that I want or has a significant price drop.

Mizzou B-ball fan

05-10-2007, 10:29 AM

Wow... that's impressive. It's that cheap because they took out the burning capabilities? That's all?

Yes. The price on the non-burning BR drive has come down quite a bit due to cost reduction. 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. By that same token, waiting to buy a PS3 until the holiday season (or even next spring) would probably be a good move if you don't have one at this point. Not only will the monster titles begin to come out (FF, MGS, GT, etc.), but you may have a price drop to $499 or an improved version of the PS3 at the $599 price (larger hard drive).

Daimyo

05-10-2007, 10:42 AM

Not sure how I missed this one. Blu-ray player is now available stand-alone for $299 from Pioneer.

That doesn't sound like a standalone player, but a drive for a PC. In which case it won't have much if any impact on the consumer market, but I might buy one. :)

Daimyo

05-10-2007, 10:43 AM

DOLA, confirmed that it is an internal drive for a PC and not a standalone Blu-Ray player.

http://news.digitaltrends.com/article12887.html

Mizzou B-ball fan

05-10-2007, 10:49 AM

DOLA, confirmed that it is an internal drive for a PC and not a standalone Blu-Ray player.

http://news.digitaltrends.com/article12887.html

With that said, if that drive can sell for $300 (which is over $400 cheaper than the previous units), some very cheap stand-alones can't be far away. We already know that sub-$300 players are expected by November. Perhaps they may be on the way even sooner than that given that the drive prices are literally being cut in half by removing the burning option.

Pumpy Tudors

05-10-2007, 10:50 AM

gstelmack

05-10-2007, 10:58 AM

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. :(

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.

BrianD

05-10-2007, 11:04 AM

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.

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.

Having said that, the difference between HD and non-HD TV signals (cable, DirecTV) is MUCH bigger than the difference between a DVD and a HD-DVD.

gstelmack

05-10-2007, 11:12 AM

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

05-10-2007, 11:30 AM

moriarty

05-10-2007, 11:31 AM

. 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

05-10-2007, 11:35 AM

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. :rolleyes:

Mizzou B-ball fan

05-10-2007, 11:38 AM

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

05-10-2007, 11:40 AM

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. :rolleyes:

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

05-10-2007, 11:44 AM

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

05-10-2007, 11:57 AM

...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

05-10-2007, 12:01 PM

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

05-10-2007, 12:03 PM

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

05-10-2007, 12:03 PM

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. :rolleyes:

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

05-10-2007, 12:31 PM

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

05-10-2007, 12:33 PM

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

05-10-2007, 12:33 PM

moriarty

05-10-2007, 12:36 PM

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. :D

Pumpy Tudors

05-10-2007, 12:49 PM

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

05-10-2007, 12:53 PM

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

05-10-2007, 01:00 PM

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

05-10-2007, 01:05 PM

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 :D. 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

05-10-2007, 01:13 PM

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

05-10-2007, 01:35 PM

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

05-10-2007, 01:36 PM

Errr, what is Planet Earth?

ISiddiqui

05-10-2007, 01:45 PM

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

http://www.amazon.com/Planet-Earth-Complete-David-Attenborough/dp/B000MR9D5E/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-1555953-2904006?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1178822684&sr=8-1

Eaglesfan27

05-10-2007, 01:46 PM

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

05-10-2007, 01:47 PM

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

Pyser

05-10-2007, 01:50 PM

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

05-10-2007, 01:51 PM

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

05-10-2007, 01:53 PM

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

05-10-2007, 02:08 PM

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

They already went with HD DVD

sabotai

05-10-2007, 03:07 PM

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

05-10-2007, 03:12 PM

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

05-10-2007, 03:28 PM

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

05-10-2007, 04:48 PM

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

05-10-2007, 04:57 PM

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

MizzouRah

05-10-2007, 05:24 PM

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

05-11-2007, 06:27 AM

Go wash up.

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

MizzouRah

05-11-2007, 12:16 PM

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

Just the vintage stuff. :D

BrianD

05-12-2007, 12:05 AM

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

05-12-2007, 02:46 AM

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

05-12-2007, 08:42 AM

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

05-12-2007, 09:49 AM

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).

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

05-12-2007, 09:58 AM

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

05-12-2007, 11:07 AM

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

05-12-2007, 11:53 AM

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

05-12-2007, 12:21 PM

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

05-12-2007, 03:11 PM

Deattribution

05-12-2007, 07:32 PM

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

05-12-2007, 07:43 PM

Most people don't know about the antenna option.

Vinatieri for Prez

05-12-2007, 11:49 PM

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.

14ers

05-13-2007, 01:32 AM

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.
Don't rub that penny to hard, scrooge.

I can not imagine ever watching sports again without HD, especially football. I can actually see the plays develop because you can see both the offensive and defensive backfields in HD. The colors are amazing, but I love the extra wide screen for football.

14ers

05-13-2007, 01:41 AM

Vinatieri for Prez

05-13-2007, 03:47 AM

I also do not buy into the idea that HD TVs are not that popular right now.

How many people posting in this thread do not own a HD TV?

Every single electronic store I am walking into now days seem to be loaded with these supposed HD TVs that no one is buying. Hell, I can't even remember going into a store that had old fashion CRT TVs. I am a partime home desinger that has been to at least 4 or 5 major homeshows this year and not a single new home in any of shows had an old fashion CRT TV. Most houses being built now days are prewired for wall mounted flatscreen TV.

So far, your evidence amounts to a big "marketing push" to sell HDTVs. All electronic stores sell SDTVs. Why would a homeshow use an old CRT - that makes no sense (we're you expecting old toilets too (you know the kind that 75% of Americans sit on each day?). So, houses are prewired? All you are talking about are "new homes." Most Americans do not live in new homes and won't be anytime soon. They live in old homes and apartments. I would conservatively estimate that SDTVs in use right now in the U.S. outnumber HDTVs somewhere in the neighborhood of maybe a hundred to one. And it ain't changing anytime soon. Down the road, yes. Like in 5 years, as I have already stated. But by then, we'll be moving to different technology than BR and HD-DVD -- which was the point of this thread discussion.

I'm glad you think that the percentage of people posting at FOFC in a thread about BR and HD-DVD is a representative sample of HDTV ownership in the U.S.

Vinatieri for Prez

05-13-2007, 05:00 AM

To follow up, my research indicates that last year (2006) was the very first year HDTV sales exceeded standard definition TV sales. That's alot of ground to make up. HDTVs exist in only about 4 million+ households (although admittedly there are varying surveys on this- however, surveys showing market penetration in the 20+million number are believed to be inaccurately high because those numbers do not come close to matching industry sales statistics). Potentially, it will be optimistically another 3 years before it reaches 50 million households. As it stands now, there is probably around 110 million households in the U.S.

It's also estimated that 50% of actual HDTV owners aren't watching HDTV programming because they don't have necessary hardware. And half of those 50% don't even know they aren't watching HDTV.

That might put actual HDTV content users currently at less than 5% of all U.S. households. That should give you an idea of how popular BR and HD-DVD will be to the masses in the near future.

MJ4H

05-13-2007, 07:39 AM

Don't rub that penny to hard, scrooge.

I can not imagine ever watching sports again without HD, especially football. I can actually see the plays develop because you can see both the offensive and defensive backfields in HD. The colors are amazing, but I love the extra wide screen for football.

Uh, great. That's YOU. I am not made of money and don't care enough about the increased quality to justify the expense. If that makes me "scrooge" in your eyes, so be it. It is not true, however.

Mizzou B-ball fan

05-14-2007, 03:44 PM

Comments from the new Disney CEO when asked if they would ever consider releasing their movies on the HD-DVD format. Note that Disney has been a BR exclusive from the start, so take these comments in that context:

"We made our bed with Blu-ray because we believed more in that format for a variety of reasons; some technical in nature, some due to the fact that it simply had broader support from a variety of industries, notably the motion picture studios but also what I’ll call the consumer electronics and the tech industry.

What we are seeing lately is that sales of Blu-ray discs are outpacing HD discs by at least two to one. As more quality Blu-ray product comes on the market, which is going to happen, notably with Pirates on May 22, we actually believe that the difference or the advantage of Blu-ray is only going to widen.

What we are also seeing is that the adoption of the platform right now is being held back a bit by a perception among consumers, really, that there is a format war; and that the hardware or the players are too expensive. We see the players coming down in price nicely, particularly by the Christmas season. We also believe that if Blu-ray continues to outpace HD DVD the retailers are ultimately going to weigh in, because they only have a limited amount of shelf space, and they are going to have to choose a format in order to manage their own shelf space. Once that happens, the advantage is going to go even more in Blu-ray’s direction.

I think the single greatest thing we can do right now is to not waffle, but to be very, very blunt about it, to continue our support of Blu-ray because we sense a real advantage. The best thing that could happen is for the format war to end, which will be very pro-consumer, particularly as hardware comes down.

The other thing I want to note is, if you look across the globe, the only place there is really a format war is in the United States. In other markets where next-gen DVD is starting to penetrate, Blu-ray is winning, and substantially; so much so there isn’t even a perceived format war.

So I think we made the right decision, the trends we are seeing seem to validate the decision. We think long-term, this is going to be a nice growth area for the company, because as you know sell-through DVD is a big business for the Walt Disney Company, even though we believe in things like VOD and the rental model. People want to own a Disney DVD, particularly in the next-generation format."

Deattribution

05-14-2007, 03:55 PM

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.

And if you read my post above you would know. HD programming is not expensive for everyone, most people can get full HD programming through their cable company for about an extra 10 bucks a month (or less). There are more people who have reasonably priced HD programming (or free with a tuner) as an option than there are HDtvs in homes right now.

My comparison had nothing to do with SDTVs, just the fact that cable/dish had nothing to do with the format (DVD) succeeding, nor will it have anything to do with BR or HD-DVD succeeding. People who do not want to pay for HD programming can easily watch SDtv on their TVs and watch movies in HD if they choose.

Vinatieri for Prez

05-14-2007, 04:17 PM

Deattribution

05-14-2007, 04:32 PM

You think someone who won't pay for HDTV programming (or bother to hook it up) - which is about 50% or HDTV owners is going to pay for a HD-DVD and higher priced DVDs? I don't think I ever said it would cause it, just that it was an indication that the whole BR/HD-DVD war is irrelevant to the vast majority of the public (as opposed to VHS/Betamax and VHS/DVD).

HD-DVD and Blu-ray aren't that much more expensive, most through Amazon are in the 20-25 dollar range, while DVDs are in the 17-20 dollar range (not counting the discounted DVDs that have been out a while).

The high def DVD market has only been around about a year, it's crazy to write it off already.

14ers

05-14-2007, 10:55 PM

You think someone who won't pay for HDTV programming (or bother to hook it up) - which is about 50% or HDTV owners is going to pay for a HD-DVD and higher priced DVDs?
Yo, right here. Like I said in my post above I am renting Blu-ray discs from Netflix as we speak. I purchased Talladega Nights at my local Sears store for $25.00

Mac Howard

05-14-2007, 11:37 PM

Just some clarification guys: you're surely not talking about 1080p tvs at $650 are you?

The reason I ask is that I'm close to upgrading my tv system to hd and aware that the prices you guys pay today are what I can expect over here (Australia) in about 12 months time.

Yesterday I was looking at the range of tvs in my local store and I noticed that the 1366 x 720 lcds have been pushed to the back of the store and replaced with the 1920 x 1080 tvs at the front being fed with signals from blue ray players. The quality of the video was superb. Stunning! So good in fact that my intention of buying a 1366 x 720 tv evapourated instantly. And with Playstation 3s flying off the shelves faster than Sony can produce them and the price of BR players dropping like a stone I don't see it being long before this quality of video becomes common in homes. The idea that it will take 5 years for BR or HD to take off I cannot fathom.

But the price of these tvs is currently $A3500 and upwards (around $3000 US) for a 40 inch set. If they were to drop below $1000 you'd get killed in the rush.

sabotai

05-15-2007, 12:02 AM

But the price of these tvs is currently $A3500 and upwards (around $3000 US) for a 40 inch set. If they were to drop below $1000 you'd get killed in the rush.

No, definitely not talking about 40 inch 1080p HDTVs being $650. In that range here are mid 20" HDTVs in 720p. And you can get a pretty big 720p HDTV for about twice that.

The lowest 1080p HDTV I've seen at 40" is from Dell (although I have not looked much at all). They sell one for $2500.

Mac Howard

05-15-2007, 12:09 AM

The lowest 1080p HDTV I've seen at 40" is from Dell (although I have not looked much at all). They sell one for $2500.

Oh, what a pity. Maybe I've got to start looking at 720p machines again :)

14ers

05-15-2007, 12:18 AM

You usually can find a low-end 37" 1080P TV for around $1,000. A top of the line 37" Sharp Aquos for under $1,500 is around if you look hard enough.

dawgfan

05-15-2007, 02:18 AM

No, definitely not talking about 40 inch 1080p HDTVs being $650. In that range here are mid 20" HDTVs in 720p. And you can get a pretty big 720p HDTV for about twice that.

The lowest 1080p HDTV I've seen at 40" is from Dell (although I have not looked much at all). They sell one for $2500.
40" Samsung LMT 4065 1080p LCD HDTV at Amazon.com for $1841.52 US dollars. This is the highest rated line of LCD TV's at CNET.com.

Mizzou B-ball fan

05-15-2007, 06:56 AM

The lowest 1080p HDTV I've seen at 40" is from Dell (although I have not looked much at all). They sell one for $2500.

Oh no. You can get them for much cheaper than that. Techbargains.com has a 42" 1080p TV for $1400 shipped. Hell, if you're a TV glutton, you can get a 73" rear projection 1080p TV for $2999 shipped right now. You can also get 720p TV's with HD tuner built-in for around $1000. The prices on high-end HDTV's are plummeting right now. There's going to be some great deals on these TV's by the holidays.

Logan

05-15-2007, 07:48 AM

1080p is very overrated anyway.

Mizzou B-ball fan

05-15-2007, 08:05 AM

1080p is very overrated anyway.

I'd agree with that. Unless you've got a screen that's more than 45-50", you're not going to see a ton of difference between 1080p and 720p. Even in the larger sets, the difference isn't worth the extra cost. 720p will give you a very good HD experience.

Logan

05-15-2007, 08:17 AM

Yes, and you also need to be sitting significantly closer to the screen for "optimal" views in 1080p. And chances are, if you're within this distance from your couch to your TV, you probably aren't going to buying a 50" screen for such a narrow room.

A great informative thread on AVS Forum on 1080p vs 720p here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=768167). And for a quick reference, the "optimal viewing" chart (http://hdguru.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/hdtv_distance_chart.pdf) for 1080p vs. 720p.

Mizzou B-ball fan

05-15-2007, 08:22 AM

In video games, there is also the concern of a slow-down in the frames per second (FPS) if you're playing in 1080p. You're going to get a much smoother gaming experience in 720p in most cases.

stevew

05-15-2007, 09:03 AM

40" Samsung LMT 4065 1080p LCD HDTV at Amazon.com for $1841.52 US dollars. This is the highest rated line of LCD TV's at CNET.com.

Yes, these tv's are absolutely stunning.

stevew

05-15-2007, 09:11 AM

dola, if Amazon is selling that one at 1840.XX, i think the cost is probably about 1600-1650. The "cost" on all sets from even late 2006 to 2007 went down like 10-15%....I mean right now you're not really getting a deal on anything, as most stores are taking a pretty huge profit margin, but in the future it should really bode well for the consumer by like oct-nov.

Mizzou B-ball fan

05-15-2007, 04:11 PM

Another big price drop on a nice BR stand-alone player.......

May 15, 2007 - Panasonic Announces DMP-BD10A
Posted May 15, 2007 by Josh

Riding the wave of huge success generated by their first Blu-ray player, the DMP-BD10, Panasonic has announced the availability of an updated version: the DMP-BD10A. Technically, the player is exactly the same as the BD10, featuring an HDMI connection, 7.1 analog outs, and decoding for DTS-HD and Dolby TrueHD. The big difference comes with the price tag; the SRP has been set at $600US.

Additionally, Panasonic will be packaging in a bundle of five titles which is sure to excite any Blu-ray owner. Purchasers will be treated with 'Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl', 'Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest', 'Transporter', 'Fantastic 4', and 'Crash'. As some of the hottest titles on Blu-ray, this makes an excellent start to any movie fans collection.

The combination of high quality features, low price (more than half the price of the original only six months ago) and five of the hottest movies on Blu-ray makes this player a must have for anyone looking to get into Blu-ray.

Mizzou B-ball fan

05-24-2007, 11:08 AM

Lots of HD movie news in the past few days. First, reports out of Europe show that the PS3 has pushed the Blu-ray format from a trailing position to a market leader in two short months:

PS3 Boosts European Blu-ray Sales
Posted May 21, 2007

Prior to the release of the PS3 in Europe, HD DVD was comfortably outselling Blu-ray discs on a weekly basis. But now, less than two months since PS3's release, Blu-ray has gained a 64% share on the year, and consistently outsells HD DVD weekly. Specifically, last week's data shows Blu-ray having a weekly sales ratio 3-to-1 over HD DVD, a ratio Blu-ray in the US has only managed once (when Casino Royale was released).

For many months, top executives from Blu-ray exclusive studios have claimed that there is no format war because of how well Blu-ray is selling outside of the United States. Their comments have now been backed by data suggesting that Blu-ray in Europe may soon rise to the popularity it has in Japan (where Blu-ray owns 96% of the HD movie market).

Also, big news in the BR player format as low-cost provider and Wal-Mart supplier Funai is planning to release a low-cost BR player:

Funai Confirms Blu-ray Support
Posted May 21, 2007

Low cost electronics manufacturer Funai (who make components for such low costs brands as Sylvania, Emerson, and Magnavox), has revealed in their latest financial report that they plan to launch a Blu-ray player. With 52% of the DVD player/recorder market in the US, it is very likely that a low cost Blu-ray player would be widely adopted, similar to the success Funai continues to have in the DVD market.

No specific player has been announced, nor any time frame, or manufacturer partnerships, but the inclusion of the bullet in their annual financial report alerts stockholders of their intention to move into the Blu-ray market. As a favorite manufacturer of Walmart (who awarded them a Billion Dollar Supplier Prize in 2006), these low cost players would most likely see wide distribution through the retail giant.

Mizzou B-ball fan

05-24-2007, 11:24 AM

stevew

05-24-2007, 11:57 AM

Price drop today on the LG Electronics BH100 player to $999.00. For those that don't know, this is a player that plays both HD-DVD and Blu-ray format discs. If they're dropping the price under $1000 on this bad boy, it's pretty likely that prices on the single format players will drop soon as well.

We're running some promo this week at work where if you buy a 1080p Samsung, you can get their BD player for 399. Of course, in my market we won't sell any of them.

stevew

05-24-2007, 11:59 AM

Man, that Funai shit is such garbage. I can't believe people pay for it, no matter what the cost is.

Mizzou B-ball fan

05-24-2007, 12:21 PM

Man, that Funai shit is such garbage. I can't believe people pay for it, no matter what the cost is.

I don't disagree. I wouldn't touch one of those players with a 10 foot pole. With that said, if they do put out a low-cost alternative in a store like Wal-Mart, it's good for Blu-ray as a format and great for consumers as the prices on other players will have to come down quicker to keep a competitive edge.

Mizzou B-ball fan

05-24-2007, 12:22 PM

We're running some promo this week at work where if you buy a 1080p Samsung, you can get their BD player for 399. Of course, in my market we won't sell any of them.

Awfully good deal. There's going to be some great deals on HDTV's this fall. I wouldn't be surprised to see more deals like that as the holiday buying season begins.

stevew

05-24-2007, 12:50 PM

Awfully good deal. There's going to be some great deals on HDTV's this fall. I wouldn't be surprised to see more deals like that as the holiday buying season begins.

Yeah, like I said in some different post, the cost on this springs models are considerably lower than they were previously. The Midrange Panasonic plasma, the 75u one, the 42 inch version costs at around 950ish. The fall's version may be closer to 850-900ish....that means that a really good HDTV may go for around 900 or less on BF this year.

Deattribution

06-19-2007, 12:37 AM

Arles

06-19-2007, 01:08 AM

Potentially, it will be optimistically another 3 years before it reaches 50 million households.
If HD TVs reach 50 million households in 3 years, Sony will make a mint if Blu-Ray wins. I'm as big a supporter in online distributions for media as there is, but there's no way people will simply stop buying DVDs (or HD disks) if they have a download option. Heck, every cable company and satellite offers pay per view, yet DVD rentals are as strong as ever.

As an aside, Best Buy is doing a deal where you basically get a free PS3 if you buy an HD TV from Sony. Basically you get this TV:

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=7986664&type=product&productCategoryId=pcmcat95100050041&id=1155069777368

($1,999 normally) + PS3 + free PS3 game + Blu Ray movie for $2089 :eek:. That's something that cost almost $2,700 last week. This has to move some PS3s.

Arles

06-19-2007, 01:11 AM

Blockbuster has announced it'll carry Blu-ray exclusively in 1,450 of it's stores as it expands it's HD movies.

That's a huge blow for HD-DVD, and what could be the final nail if another big retailer follows suit.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19289649/wid/11915829?GT1=10056

This line is a little surprising:
"Blockbuster has been renting both Blu-ray and HD DVD titles in 250 stores since late last year and found that consumers were choosing Blu-ray titles more than 70 percent of the time."

This might be the first big blow directly from the PS3 to HD-DVD. I have a feeling if Blu-Ray was not part of the PS3, that number would have been reversed.

Schmidty

06-19-2007, 01:42 AM

If you spend time at home watching movies, it's a must.

Quick!!! Look down - Earth is calling!!!

SackAttack

06-19-2007, 02:00 AM

If HD TVs reach 50 million households in 3 years, Sony will make a mint if Blu-Ray wins. I'm as big a supporter in online distributions for media as there is, but there's no way people will simply stop buying DVDs (or HD disks) if they have a download option. Heck, every cable company and satellite offers pay per view, yet DVD rentals are as strong as ever.

As an aside, Best Buy is doing a deal where you basically get a free PS3 if you buy an HD TV from Sony. Basically you get this TV:

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=7986664&type=product&productCategoryId=pcmcat95100050041&id=1155069777368

($1,999 normally) + PS3 + free PS3 game + Blu Ray movie for $2089 :eek:. That's something that cost almost $2,700 last week. This has to move some PS3s.

Well, yes and no. I don't think anybody who was going to buy a PS3 is going to jump on this unless they're absolutely sold on the TV in question.

However, somebody who was looking at one of those TVs anyway would be taking a much harder look at PS3 with a deal like that; I had a guy a couple weeks ago who wanted a game machine for his son and a next-gen DVD device for himself.

If he's in the market for a TV, and something like this pops up, it becomes a no-brainer...but more because of the TV than the system, IMO. I can't see anybody spending an extra $1400 to save $600, but I can sure see them maybe taking a step up from a lesser TV to one of the two in this deal to get a PS3.

SackAttack

06-19-2007, 02:02 AM

Well, an extra $2000, really. Don't mind my math.

Mizzou B-ball fan

06-19-2007, 07:19 AM

This line is a little surprising:
"Blockbuster has been renting both Blu-ray and HD DVD titles in 250 stores since late last year and found that consumers were choosing Blu-ray titles more than 70 percent of the time."

This might be the first big blow directly from the PS3 to HD-DVD. I have a feeling if Blu-Ray was not part of the PS3, that number would have been reversed.

I'm not sure why it's all that surprising. Sales numbers as far as number of units moved are very similar to the rental numbers. Last numbers I saw were that BR is outselling HD-DVD discs at a 68/32 clip. So the rental ratio is nearly identical to the sales ratio.

As far as the PS3 effect, there's no doubt that it likely is going to end up winning the format war. HD-DVD had a lead in North America until the PS3 release. Since then, BR has been steadily outselling HD-DVD discs at a 2:1 ratio. In Europe, HD-DVD actually had pretty good sales. After the PS3 release, HD-DVD sales fell by 87% and BR now holds a 72% market share in terms of discs sold and that number is growing. Japan was never a battle as BR holds a 96% market share in that region.

Arles

06-19-2007, 11:15 AM

Well, yes and no. I don't think anybody who was going to buy a PS3 is going to jump on this unless they're absolutely sold on the TV in question.
Yeah, what I was getting at is if you were in the market for a $1700 to $2300 HDTV, this deal becomes a nice way for Sony to also get you a PS3 for essentially nothing.

It's almost like the old AOL "buy a year and we give you this cable modem for free" setup. The consumer saves $600 and feels like they got a good deal. From a Sony stanpoint, they make decent money from the TV and still get to count a sale for both a PS3 and Blu-Ray DVD in their "war" against Xbox and HD-DVD.

Mizzou B-ball fan

06-20-2007, 07:25 AM

The new copy protection system for Blu-ray movies is now available. The reason this is important is that Fox and MGM (which are BR exclusive distributors) have been holding off on releasing a lot of their movies until this new technology was complete. Now that it's ready, we're likely to see a flood of BR titles from these companies in the coming months, which should increase the BR library size quite a bit.

BD+ Goes Live
Posted June 19, 2007 by Josh

The BD+ Technologies, LLC is now issuing specifications for use by movie studios to begin using the BD Plus (BD+) content protection system. Essentially, BD+ is now ready for studio use on new releases. BD+ is a very fluid content protection system which allows many levels of protection from piracy, ensuring that studio content isn't copied for financial gain.

Most will note that Fox/MGM has been silent for the past few months while waiting for this technology to mature, so we should be seeing an announcement from them shortly in regards to new releases. Other studios, including those who currently don't support Blu-ray, have shown some interest as well, though it is unknown if any other studio besides Fox will make use of this technology at this time.

Mizzou B-ball fan

06-20-2007, 04:31 PM

Panasonic's CEO says that the format war is over.......

http://www.twice.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6453379

Panasonic's Taylor Outlines Views On Blu-ray, Flat Panel
By Steve Smith -- TWICE, 6/20/2007 8:00:00 AM
UPDATE! Secaucus, N.J. — Joseph Taylor, executive VP/COO of Panasonic Corporation of North America, said Blu-ray has won the HD disc format battle and indicated while the company is still solidly behind plasma, LCD may get more attention.

Those were just two of the issues Taylor discussed in an exclusive one-on-one interview with TWICE, the first since the 25-year Panasonic Industrial Company veteran took on his new job earlier this year.

Concerning Blu-ray and HD DVD, Taylor commented, "I'm giving a very politically incorrect answer. I think the battle is over. I think Blu-ray has won."

He said there are two "determining factor[s] ... Who did the content providers select? At the moment, overwhelmingly, the content providers have selected Blu-ray. What are consumers buying? Since the beginning of the year content [sales have been] almost two to one for Blu-ray."

Taylor added, "There may be some noise for a little while, but in the end I think Blu-ray will be the technology that wins the battle."

With so much of Panasonic's emphasis on plasma in the last few years, when asked if the company is comfortable being the leading plasma TV market share leader, while surveys show a trend towards LCD in flat-panels, Taylor remarked, "We are never comfortable and hope we never become comfortable (with the status quo). Really the marketplace will decide which flat panel they prefer."
Joseph Taylor

He noted, "We are in a unique position because we just don't just provide plasma but LCD. In this unique position we can do what our customers need us to do."

In discussing Panasonic's emphasis on plasma in recent years, Taylor said plasma is the centerpiece of the company’s strategy to drive sales of high definition devices but, "We are not just pushing plasma ... We are saying 'flat panel' because we are also a major manufacturer of LCD products as well."

TroyF

06-20-2007, 05:25 PM

Mizzou B-ball fan

06-21-2007, 06:30 AM

So instead of people breaking the copy protection in a week, it'll take em two.

:D

Yeah, I totally agree. I'm not sure why they think this protection scheme will be any better, but I'm glad that we're going to be seeing a lot of movies in the BR pipeline now. Whatever floats their boat.......

stevew

06-21-2007, 06:35 AM

He noted, "We are in a unique position because we just don't just provide plasma but LCD. In this unique position we can do what our customers need us to do."

Panasonic makes like a 26lcd and a 32inch LCD. Maybe a couple smaller ones, but they basically just pay lip service to LCD's. I wish they would make larger LCD's(maybe like a 37") cause their LCD's are pretty nice, and people are still kind of leary for plasmas.

Oh yeah, and their projection TV's are basically junk.

Mac Howard

06-21-2007, 10:56 AM

Do your free-to-air channels not transmit any HD content yet?

On sales here in Oz: in the last three months:

56% of tvs sold are plasma/lcd HD and 81% of HD DVDs are Blue-Ray.

Mizzou B-ball fan

06-22-2007, 09:53 AM

Do your free-to-air channels not transmit any HD content yet?

On sales here in Oz: in the last three months:

56% of tvs sold are plasma/lcd HD and 81% of HD DVDs are Blue-Ray.

Yes, most of the major local stations do transmit HD content over the air here in the U.S.

I'd heard that BR was doing well in Australia. I'd be really interested to see the percentage of TV's sold in the U.S. that are HD.

Mizzou B-ball fan

06-22-2007, 01:45 PM

Low cost BR players on the horizon. Expected to be sold for $200-300 for the holidays. Both Sony and Toshiba need to get these players out as quickly as possible to expand the market.

Low Cost Funai Blu-ray Player This Fall
Posted June 22, 2007 by Josh

The first low cost Blu-ray player will hit US shelves this fall from Funai, according to reports from Japan. As we reported earlier, Funai makes low costs electronics which are then sold under brand names such as Sylvania, Emerson, and Magnavox. While no pricing or specs have yet been released, expect pricing to be lower than players from top manufacturers, which are expected to drop to around $400 for the holiday season.

At this year's CES, HD DVD announced that they would leverage cheap players from China to reach a wider marketplace. Since then, the camp has been very quite as to when these players would actually show up. It appears that Blu-ray may match their claim, or even beat it, effectively nullifying any pricing advantage this important holiday season.

SnDvls

06-22-2007, 11:10 PM

http://tech.yahoo.com/blog/null/30293

Blockbuster Sides With Blu-ray

In what some have termed a "death knell" for HD-DVD, Blockbuster Video has announced that it will be moving almost exclusively to Blu-ray for its high-definition titles and away from HD-DVD. 1700 stores will be Blu-ray only, while 250 stores (and online) will carry both next-gen DVD formats. (Naturally, all will still carry regular DVDs and, I guess, VHS. That still exists, right?)

The news isn't quite a death blow for HD-DVD, though it isn't good. Blockbuster's power in the market has been fading for some time. The company's market capitalization, for example, is now 35 percent less than online-only renter Netflix. Blockbuster stock trades at $4.60. Still, Blockbuster buys an awful lot of DVDs and they won't be stocking many HD-DVDs going forward. That could be a big problem for the format in this early stage in its life.

The news is particularly sad because most users tend to feel that HD-DVD is the superior format, with people going ga-ga over its heavily interactive features and exceptional bonus content.

That said, Blu-ray has, according to many reports, been chipping away at HD-DVDs early lead. Though making predictions based on early results is difficult, Blu-ray undoubtedly has the momentum right now.

Personally, I am so unthrilled with both formats that I'm happy to see someone, finally, taking a stand in the marketplace one way or another. Even if Blu-ray is technologically inferior, it will evolve and improve. But the industry is just spinning its wheels while this format war rages on, and consumers continue to be the ones who lose while things get figured out as half the buyers are essentially wasting their money.

Still, Blockbuster is just one player, and Netflix could announce tomorrow that it is only stocking HD-DVD titles, who knows? And I hope all renters and retailers make similar decisions in the near future, one way or the other. The sooner the format war is ended, no matter who wins, the better off we all are.

Mizzou B-ball fan

06-27-2007, 07:20 AM

Looks like you can now buy the Panasonic Blu-ray player and get 10 free BR movies. Also, gift cards being offered on the PS3........

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=280

Five Free Blu-ray Movies with Purchase of Player
Posted June 26, 2007 by Josh

The Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA) has revealed an exciting offer for those of you who are still looking to pick up a Blu-ray player. If you purchase a Blu-ray player (including the PS3) between July 1st and September 30th, you will automatically qualify to receive 5 Blu-ray movies absolutely free. Combine this with existing offers (like the 5 free Blu-ray movies with purchase of a Panasonic DMP-BD10A), and you could receive up to 10 free Blu-ray movies with the purchase of a player.

But wait, there's more! If you decide you would like to purchase a PS3, Sony is offering a special deal through their retail Sony Style stores. Purchase a PS3, two games, and an extra controller from now until July 8th, and you will receive a $50 gift card.

jbmagic

06-28-2007, 10:59 AM

Yet Another High-Def DVD Format Arrives...

You've barely had time to grow to hate Blu-ray and HD-DVD, but here comes yet another high-definition DVD format: HD Versatile Multilayer Disc, or HD VMD.

The story of HD VMD reads like a farce, maybe Don Quixote updated for the internet age. The technology is the brainchild of a UK company you've never heard of called New Medium Enterprises. New Medium has one independent studio lined up to provide content in the U.S., and one online retailer you've never heard of to sell HD VMD players. Outside the U.S., HD VMD may have better luck: a handful of films from Mel Gibson's Icon Film Distribution will appear on the format in Australia and New Zealand. A purported 5,000 films are slated for various European country releases.

What's the catch with VMD? It's a red-laser technology, which means it uses the same basic manufacturing, mastering, and playback system as DVDs and audio CDs. This means everything involved with the technology should be cheaper than with blue-laser tech, eliminating a major complaint with next-gen DVD formats. New Medium's goal is to offer players at less than $200 in the U.S., cheaper than even the cheapest high-def player by quite a big margin, but at least twice the price of a good standard DVD player.

But so many questions remain, mainly what VMD actually looks like on screen, what the audio sounds like, what the special features might look like, and more. We won't see VMD in the U.S. until September, and frankly I'm doubtful if many people will see it at all. The one thing I do know: VMD discs will hold 40GB, max, and discs can have up to 20 layers of data on them (hence the big storage capability and the name).

Ultimately I'm reminded of attempts to reinvent the floppy disk after it was nearing the end of its life. Anyone remember LS-120? You'd have to be a major geek to recall this floppy enhancer, which tried to muscle into the market after CD-R was on the rise.

But why not market VMD as a successor and enhancement to regular DVD-R drives? While I can name no one who's interested in yet another high-def movie format, consumers would kill to have affordable ways to burn 40GB data discs at home. Imagine burning an 8,000-song music collection onto a single disc for safe keeping. Now that's something I'd pay 200 bucks for.

Eaglesfan27

06-28-2007, 11:11 AM

Mizzou B-ball fan

06-28-2007, 11:19 AM

From reading on another board, the list of Blu-Ray movies that you can get free through this offer is a bunch of crappy moves and none of the popular Blu-Ray movies are on it.

The HD-DVD deal is a similar deal. They exclude the better discs. I'm not sure that's terribly surprising.

One thing I would note is that the term of this deal may signal when the PS3 price cut may occur. I sincerly doubt that Sony will offer a price cut with the free disc deal. The free 5 discs deal ends September 30th. I would be shocked if they didn't do the price drop right after that deal expires for the holiday season. Hopefully MS does something similar and gets a price war going.

stevew

06-28-2007, 12:36 PM

The HD-DVD deal is a similar deal. They exclude the better discs. I'm not sure that's terribly surprising.

One thing I would note is that the term of this deal may signal when the PS3 price cut may occur. I sincerly doubt that Sony will offer a price cut with the free disc deal. The free 5 discs deal ends September 30th. I would be shocked if they didn't do the price drop right after that deal expires for the holiday season. Hopefully MS does something similar and gets a price war going.

LOL, the HD-DVD options are awful. I can't quite remember exactly what they are, but I remember looking at it at work, and deciding that it wasn't even worth sending in the form.

Mizzou B-ball fan

06-29-2007, 11:07 AM

Looks like the HD-DVD players are going to stay at the lower prices after the rebates end. Good news as it should continue to force down the prices on HD player, which is always good for the consumers.

Toshiba lowers SRP on HD-DVD players
Toshiba lowers SRP on HD-DVD players Announcement
By Henning Molbaek
FIRST PUBLISHED Jun 29, 2007
This July 1st Toshiba will lower the SRP of it's HD-DVD players.

The new prices are:

Toshiba HD-A2: $299
Toshiba HD-A20: $399
Toshiba HD-XA2: $799 (Same as before)

This means that even after their $100 in-store rebate stopped they will continue to sell them at low prices.

Pyser

08-21-2007, 12:52 PM

Paramount goes HD DVD exclusive
Studio nixes Blu-ray format for future releases
By DANIEL FRANKEL, BEN FRITZ
Talk Back - post a comment

'Blades of Glory'
The high-definition DVD format war took a strange twist Monday as Paramount and DreamWorks Animation announced that their future releases will be exclusively in HD DVD.

Move is the third by Par in the ongoing format war. In 2004, studio announced that it would release its movies in HD DVD. A year later, with HD DVD seemingly waning, it decided to release in Blu-ray as well...

Mizzou B-ball fan

08-21-2007, 12:55 PM

Pyser

08-21-2007, 12:58 PM

um...okay. but why the hell are we discussing the format war in a monthly gaming thread? (i mean, i know why, but im not reading that beast)

gstelmack

08-21-2007, 12:59 PM

um...okay. but why the hell are we discussing the format war in a monthly gaming thread? (i mean, i know why, but im not reading that beast)

I have no clue either, and was asking myself the same thing.

Mizzou B-ball fan

08-21-2007, 01:01 PM

I have no clue either, and was asking myself the same thing.

LOL......I'm not sure. Someone posted it there. I'm not to blame. :)

dawgfan

08-21-2007, 06:14 PM

um...okay. but why the hell are we discussing the format war in a monthly gaming thread? (i mean, i know why, but im not reading that beast)
It's not totally unrelated to the console war - after all, the decision by Sony to implement Blu-Ray in the PS3 is the biggest reason they've struggled so much since their launch.

Pyser

08-21-2007, 06:46 PM

i understand they are linked. but i dont want to read 15 pages about all of that and how the ps2 is still selling inexplicably well just to know that paramount has picked a side in the format war.

Mizzou B-ball fan

08-22-2007, 09:20 AM

It's not totally unrelated to the console war - after all, the decision by Sony to implement Blu-Ray in the PS3 is the biggest reason they've struggled so much since their launch.

And the biggest reason they're winning the format war. I wish there was a way we could pinpoint the opportunity cost of winning the format war versus the slower sales of the console. It certainly would be an interesting financial study.

gstelmack

08-22-2007, 01:20 PM

Mizzou B-ball fan

08-22-2007, 01:27 PM

Does anyone have some specific sales numbers, especially of titles? My guess is that the real answer is not that Blu-Ray is "winning", but rather that Blu-Ray is losing the format war less than HD-DVD is. Both are losing out to regular DVDs and IPTV downloads and HD OnDemand / PPV.

But that's like saying that the PS2 is blowing away the 360 and the PS3. It's premature to say that because the 360 and PS3 haven't reached that mass appeal price point where they maximize demand with profit. Similarly, the DVD medium is well established, but that doesn't mean that the HD mediums can't become big players. Next holiday season is when the HD media is going to start maximizing exposure as the HDTV adoption rate will grow quite a bit and the price point on both players should be sub-$200.

As far as movie sales go, Blu-ray has sold around 2.3 million with HD-DVD selling about 1.5 million units.

rowech

08-22-2007, 01:30 PM

Could it be that our technology is simply going too fast compared to what folks actually can afford or want?

Mizzou B-ball fan

08-22-2007, 01:33 PM

Could it be that our technology is simply going too fast compared to what folks actually can afford or want?

I think that's definitely the case with the consoles and somewhat with the DVD media market. This stuff came out a year or two too early, but they forced each other into releasing the formats/consoles. This stuff really shouldn't have come out until the digital TV transition in 2009.

Pyser

08-22-2007, 01:35 PM

i consider myself a movie buff. i have a large dvd collection. i own an hdtv. and i have absolutely no desire to upgrade to dvds in hd, in either format.

for me to get the most out of those formats, i would need to buy a 1080p tv, yes? i dont see myself doing that for a few more years, at least. besides, from what ive seen, a nicely upconverted dvd is comparable to 1080p dvds in hd.

i suspect i am far from alone.

cartman

08-22-2007, 02:02 PM

Until the sales of Blu-Ray or HD-DVD titles become greater than a rounding error of regular DVD sales, neither format can claim supremacy. Those figures quoted my Mizzou above are overall sales for the formats since inception. Added together, that total is less than what Shrek 2 sold by itself during its first week on DVD.

Marc Vaughan

08-22-2007, 02:06 PM

dawgfan

08-22-2007, 02:10 PM

Just to put my tuppence worth in - I looked at getting an High Definition TV a year or so back and came to the conclusion I couldn't really see the difference between them when looking at the HD and non-HD televisions instore ... so I didn't bother.

I'll occassionally look at the 'wall' of TVs in Walmart or a similar store to see if things have changed, but so far all I see is a bigger picture - nothing miraculous to behold really.

(I DO have bad eyesight, but I expected to see 'something' better myself)
The difference between a regular TV showing a normal feed and an HDTV showing an HD feed is huge - if you've looked at an HDTV showing HD content and you couldn't really see a difference, you really need to get your lens prescription updated ;)

Now, an HDTV showing a normal feed actually looks worse than a standard TV (IMO), so if that's what you've seen then yeah, you haven't really seen an HDTV doing what it does best.

rowech

08-22-2007, 02:32 PM

The difference between a regular TV showing a normal feed and an HDTV showing an HD feed is huge - if you've looked at an HDTV showing HD content and you couldn't really see a difference, you really need to get your lens prescription updated ;)

Now, an HDTV showing a normal feed actually looks worse than a standard TV (IMO), so if that's what you've seen then yeah, you haven't really seen an HDTV doing what it does best.

I agree....I don't know how you can take two similar tvs and not see the HD difference. Especially when it comes to sports.

gstelmack

08-22-2007, 02:41 PM

gstelmack

08-22-2007, 02:44 PM

Just to put my tuppence worth in - I looked at getting an High Definition TV a year or so back and came to the conclusion I couldn't really see the difference between them when looking at the HD and non-HD televisions instore ... so I didn't bother.

I'll occassionally look at the 'wall' of TVs in Walmart or a similar store to see if things have changed, but so far all I see is a bigger picture - nothing miraculous to behold really.

(I DO have bad eyesight, but I expected to see 'something' better myself)

Marc:

Take your favorite PC soccer game. Play it at 640x480 on a regular CRT monitor. Then play it at 1280x720 on a widescreen LCD. Tell me again you can't tell the difference. As mentioned a few posts up, my guess is you weren't looking at material that showed the difference. As much as I love American football in HD, Hockey is actually a sport that benefits the most. I suspect soccer / World football would be the same for the same reason: see more of the field while still being able to identify the ball and players, so you see more of the setup of the play.

I agree that movies and your average television show don't benefit all THAT much from going 480P -> 720P, but sports sure do.

Marc Vaughan

08-22-2007, 03:42 PM

Mizzou B-ball fan

08-22-2007, 04:15 PM

Feeling tempted now - but I like to see what I'm getting in advance and from what you chaps are indicating none of the stores seem to have their systems setup to show the advantages of the HD systems.

(the only thing I've seen an 'advantage' with so far as in the UK Games stores generally had 360s running on HDTV's and that did look funky compared to SD .. however I don't have a 360 currently ..)

I've heard similar stories about UK and EU stores that they don't always set up their HD demos correctly. I honestly get extremely frustrated watching American football or soccer games on a non-HD screen now that I have HD. It's like night and day. You have no idea how much you've been missing until you get a good HDTV with HD channels.

Marc Vaughan

08-22-2007, 04:26 PM

I've heard similar stories about UK and EU stores that they don't always set up their HD demos correctly. I honestly get extremely frustrated watching American football or soccer games on a non-HD screen now that I have HD. It's like night and day. You have no idea how much you've been missing until you get a good HDTV with HD channels.
Apologies if you thought I meant it was only American stores I'd found this in - I first looked at HD in UK stores and can confirm they are equally awful in failing to show them in a decent light at all.

With regards to HD would you only get it with a large screen or do you think a 31/32 inch sceen is large enough to appreciate it in?

(as thats the maximum room we have available in our cabinet at the moment, we do need to replace the cabinet one day as it was a freebie and is falling apart .... but, one expense at a time and all that ;))

Mizzou B-ball fan

08-22-2007, 04:31 PM

Apologies if you thought I meant it was only American stores I'd found this in - I first looked at HD in UK stores and can confirm they are equally awful in failing to show them in a decent light at all.

With regards to HD would you only get it with a large screen or do you think a 31/32 inch sceen is large enough to appreciate it in?

(as thats the maximum room we have available in our cabinet at the moment, we do need to replace the cabinet one day as it was a freebie and is falling apart .... but, one expense at a time and all that ;))

I have a 32 inch HDTV in my bedroom. It's easy to tell even on that size screen the difference in picture quality. You'll fall over giggling the first time you see a soccer game in HD.

gstelmack

08-22-2007, 08:35 PM

My TV in the living room is 34". Depends on how far away you want to sit.

stevew

08-22-2007, 08:42 PM

Apologies if you thought I meant it was only American stores I'd found this in - I first looked at HD in UK stores and can confirm they are equally awful in failing to show them in a decent light at all.

With regards to HD would you only get it with a large screen or do you think a 31/32 inch sceen is large enough to appreciate it in?

(as thats the maximum room we have available in our cabinet at the moment, we do need to replace the cabinet one day as it was a freebie and is falling apart .... but, one expense at a time and all that ;))

http://www.sears.com/sr/javasr/product.do?cat=Televisions&pid=05754667000&vertical=ELEC&subcat=LCD+TVs&BV_UseBVCookie=Yes

If you don't mind buying a rear projection, that's a 37" sony that's designed to fit in most existing entertainment centers that can hold a 32" tube tv. Most of the time you can get it for $899.

stevew

08-22-2007, 08:44 PM

Dola

Does anyone have the x360 HDDVD add on? It's starting to drop in price, and I think I'd much rather use it to play standard dvd's than using my xbox.

Eaglesfan27

08-22-2007, 09:58 PM

Dola

Does anyone have the x360 HDDVD add on? It's starting to drop in price, and I think I'd much rather use it to play standard dvd's than using my xbox.

I don't yet, but I'll probably be getting it for Christmas.

Mizzou B-ball fan

08-23-2007, 01:11 PM

I have no idea if this will do well or not, but there's going to be a new Blu-ray player that plays movies in 3D. Release is expected in early 2008. Obviously a niche product early on.

rowech

08-23-2007, 02:11 PM

Are there any companies making a blu-ray/HDDVD combo player?

Pyser

08-23-2007, 02:38 PM

i dont know the name of have any info, but yes, there are combo players out there

Eaglesfan27

08-23-2007, 02:41 PM

A quick google search reveals that Samsung will have 2 models that are combo players out before the end of the year. They will retail for 1049 and 1499 respectively.

http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9749669-7.html

Neuqua

08-23-2007, 02:41 PM

LG has a hybrid Hddvd/blu-ray player but from reviews, the features are very barebone and hardly worth the $900 pricetag.

stevew

08-23-2007, 03:27 PM

The LG player doesn't even fully play all the menus on HDDVD's supposedly.

rowech

08-23-2007, 03:42 PM

It just seems to me, this would be where to put your money right now if you were a company. Some of these companies choose one side or the other, why not try and walk both sides at a cheap enough pricetag to have people want to buy your machine.

Mizzou B-ball fan

08-24-2007, 01:53 PM

Some really strong rumors swirling in the hi-def media and retail industries........

The head of Warner Bros. just stepped down. He was a proponent of HD-DVD and Toshiba reportedly offered him money last week (much like the Paramount deal) to switch over, but WB executive board voted to refuse the deal. The rumor is that he was forced out because he failed to meet his projections, mainly because the HD-DVD end of their business didn't pan out due to sluggish sales compared to Blu-ray.

Also, lots of strong rumors that Wal-Mart will be exclusively carrying a $199 Blu-ray stand-alone player by the holidays. Might be a reason to hold off on a purchase.

KWhit

08-24-2007, 03:15 PM

stevew

08-24-2007, 03:29 PM

what better $199 BD player or $35 2nd hand VCR?

stevew

08-24-2007, 05:04 PM

And I really think Sony is dropping the ball by not including Blu Ray players in a lot of their retail type dvd surround systems. For instance, the DAV-IS10 http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665098460 is already $799, which basically makes it a niche product. May as well make that guy a grand, and make it BD compatable.

Mizzou B-ball fan

08-30-2007, 11:50 AM

Rough blow for Toshiba today as they lost their only ally on the computer front. Acer (which will reportedly be buying Gateway) will no longer be HD-DVD exclusive. This leaves Toshiba as the only computer producer who carries only HD-DVD drives for their computers.

Also, newest sales figures are in for both the EU and the U.S. Blu-ray still maintains their 2:1 edge in the U.S. and holds an even larger margin in the EU mainly due to more retailers overseas switching to BR only.

gstelmack

09-06-2007, 11:50 AM

BD sales dropping. HD as well, albeit slower. Neither format selling well at all.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8764

Bee

09-06-2007, 12:55 PM

Mizzou B-ball fan

09-06-2007, 01:00 PM

BD sales dropping. HD as well, albeit slower. Neither format selling well at all.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8764

As small as the relative market is right now, there's going to be quite a bit of volitility caused by something as simple as one big release. Casino Royale and '300' were a couple that caused a huge spike. Transformers will likely cause a pretty large HD-DVD spike as well. It's just the nature of the beast at this point.

It should be noted however that this is only a North American phenomenon as far as the competition goes. The battle in Japan is all but over with 96% last I saw going to Blu-ray. The EU countries are currently running around 70-75% in favor of Blu-ray. Also amazing to note that HD media in general is selling much better in the EU than it is in Japan or the U.S. Not sure why, but it is doing well.

Mizzou B-ball fan

09-06-2007, 01:05 PM

I saw where 6 new brands of HD-DVD players would be shipping during the 4th quarter of this year. New players are shipping from: Integra, Shinco, Ventura, Alpine, Onkyo and Samsung. That's in addition to the 3 new players from Toshiba.

Yeah, the IFA conference is currently in session, so you'll see a ton of new announcements this week. I've seen announcements for 10 new HD-DVD players and 12 new BR players. Honestly, 80-90% of them are far too expensive for the mass market, but the companies like to parade out the biggest and best each year.

I saw that Sony is going to release a 200-disc BR player for $3,500. Talk about overkill.......I'm not even sure there are 200 BR movies out yet.

Bee

09-06-2007, 01:11 PM

Something else from the IFA that I found interesting

70% of HD media on notebooks are HD DVD so the company say they are "starting from a high platform". Estimates are that by the end of 2007, there will be 30 million more HD DVD notebooks sold, with 16 million of those to consumer, not corporate customers.

An industry insider we talked to said: "This appears to be smart a move from Toshiba, and although an optical drive could be argued as a very different format to a next-gen DVD player, if it increases software sales, and take up of their next-gen platform among even a moderate proportion of those 16 million notebook customers, you could argue that HD DVD could win this 'war' by the back door".

No idea if it will work out that way or not, but it's an interesting approach.

Mizzou B-ball fan

09-06-2007, 01:25 PM

Something else from the IFA that I found interesting

No idea if it will work out that way or not, but it's an interesting approach.

Yeah, you'll note a few posts up that Toshiba lost its last two allies on that front. Toshiba is now the only company exclusively producing laptops with optional HD-DVD drives. All other companies now offer both drives or are BR exclusive, so I'm not sure that's quite the advantage that person quoted might imply.

As gstelmack mentioned, this market is still very much in its infancy. That 70% that he cited likely is only in the tens of thousands of movies sold if not smaller, which isn't much compared to the millions of DVD's that move during a similar time frame. I'm not sure either format will make any headway on the other based on laptop drives. They're just not that big of a market.

sterlingice

09-06-2007, 07:58 PM

I was thinking on the way home about movie collections and how people like to possess hard copies of things. Pretty much everyone from the poor to the rich has a movie collection. I'm really starting to think the common refrain of "just wait, digital downloads will take over" is pretty overblown for at least another generation.

Most everyone can afford the $30-$50 one time cost for a DVD player and maybe $10 every month or two, once BluRay and HD start getting down to DVD prices as the technology gets more affordable. It's a bit higher of a leap for people to sustain the level of ~$300+ for a computer or digital recording system, $30-$50 a month for high speed internet, and then $5+ for a movie and those prices aren't really dropping, particularly not at the rate optical media will start dropping in the next year or two when it becomes mainstream.

That said, it's like the PS2 and PS3- one of the biggest competitors for BR and HD are older DVDs. Now it looks like more of a race- will the price of next gen optical media get cheaper or will something happen to move that price for digital downloads? I think the latter will happen before the sooner in a substantial way to actually make this race worth something.

SI

dawgfan

09-06-2007, 08:11 PM

Since most people that would have a DVD player probably have a computer and a high-speed 'net connection, I think the only real issue here is the cost of hard drive space and the ease of transferring downloaded content to your TV (PC? Video Game console? Specialty device?) vs. the cost of buying a new media player, i.e. HD-DVD player or Blu-Ray player/PS3.

Given the inclination to want to have a backup of important files, it may well be that Sony makes their money back on Blu-Ray if that becomes the recordable hard media of choice for people backup up their downloaded music, movies and TV shows. On the other hand, it sounds like Toshiba might be making some headway by making HD-DVD drives the standard as hard media drives on their computers.

I dunno though - I think it may still be more cost effective to backup files with multiple hard drives.

Mizzou B-ball fan

09-11-2007, 07:19 AM

New NPD numbers now reporting that Blu-ray stand-alone players have now passed HD-DVD numbers. Note that does not include PS3 installed base.

http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6475686.html

Sony: Blu-ray set-top players out-selling HD DVD
By Susanne Ault -- Video Business, 9/5/2007

SEPT. 5 | DENVER—Blu-ray Disc set-top players within the last nine weeks have begun out-selling HD DVD set-top players on a unit basis, according to recent NPD Group research cited by Sony Electronics.

Sony touted the reversal of HD DVD’s long-running stand-alone dominance during its Wednesday press conference at CEDIA.

The most recent data from the NPD Group shows that standalone BD players now exceed 50% of all high-definition players sold.

Sony VP Chris Fawcett said the change occurred mostly due to the introduction of Sony’s $499 player. And according to NPD, today's number one Blu-ray set-top brand in the U.S. is this entry-level Sony model.

In attempt to fight this revelation, Toshiba spokespeople pointed out Thursday that year-to-date through July Toshiba HD DVD players enjoyed a 55% market share. Collectively, Blu-ray players cornered a 42% share, and dual format players held a 3% share.

According to a Toshiba statement, "While the competition may claim leadership based on one month of data, Toshiba has had continued sales leadership in every month since the original HD DVD players launched 17 months ago."