Why HD DVD and Blu-ray Need You To Be an Early Adopter Now

[kennyt]

I wish it went that way too! I really do, but in the mean time I am really enjoying the best video out there, and will continue to buy software as the discs are not much more expensive (I just ordered NL Christmas Vacation and Badder Santa from Amazon for $35.90 which after my $25 GC for using my Amazon CC means I paid $5 for each shipped) I can live with that!

[snofun3]

I get my HD via cable and have about 35 HD channels, so I can wait for HD on DVD for when the fall-out is over. Most of the stuff I want (concert DVD's) aren't available on either format yet anyway, so an upconverting player is all I need for now.

And I want HDMI 1.3 just as bad, but that's another can of worms, particularly for those that invested in 1st generation players.


I suspect new bigscreen (61-65) willcome within the next 3-4 months, then a HD/BR DVD after that.

[kennyt]

The difference between 1080i and 1080p is more than you can imagine. All your digital cable is compressed even when in 1080i. While it looks good, it is not as good as a native, uncompressed source of 1080p.

I would have to agree with you about waiting for 1.3 nowadays. FWIW multiple players are already 1.3 capable.

[whatchel1]

Originally Posted by kennyt

The difference between 1080i and 1080p is more than you can imagine. All your digital cable is compressed even when in 1080i. While it looks good, it is not as good as a native, uncompressed source of 1080p.

I would have to agree with you about waiting for 1.3 nowadays. FWIW multiple players are already 1.3 capable.

Blue Ray & HD DVD are both compressed maybe not as much as cable or sat but just the same they are compressed. It is just part of the encoding decoding process. The following is from Wikipedia.

Codecs

Codecs are compression schemes that reduce data storage requirements; both lossy and lossless compression techniques have been developed and are being used. Depending on the application, either can be used to greatly increase the amount of audio or video storable on fixed bit-capacity media.

The BD-ROM specification mandates certain codec compatibilities for both hardware decoders (players) and the movie-software (content). For video, all players are required to support ISO MPEG-2, H.264/AVC, and SMPTE VC-1. MPEG-2 video allows decoder backward compatibility for DVDs. H.264, sometimes called MPEG-4 part 10, is a more recent video codec. VC-1 is a competing MPEG-4 derivative codec proposed by Microsoft (based on Microsoft's previous work in Windows Media 9). BD-ROM titles with video must store video using one of the three mandatory codecs (multiple codecs on a single title are allowed).

I personally am waiting for a bit more of a shake out. I prefer HD DVD over BR disc. But this is due to the fact I don't like the way primarily Sony has seen fit to try and force the new standard down our throats. Also Sony still doesn't seem to get it. The public wants good pq but a a reasonable price. Here I'm referring to the price of the players. We need good players selling for under the $200 mark before the average joe is going to start buying. Right now HD DVD is getting close to that. Also it is something I've heard that some of the "movie" houses don't want porn to be out on the format that they are on. So it looks a lot like the porn industry will have to swing over to HD DVD and if they do that the tied very likely will start swing to them. It really helped VHS over beta in the pass will probably do the same here as well.

[kennyt]

whatchel1,

I know porn was credited for the VHS/Beta victory, but this has been brought up before and porn is currently available in BOTH Blu-ray and HD DVD....

Trust me, I have some, you might not want that much detail in your porn!

[mcraghead]

Originally Posted by snofun3

Work out the format then I'll come on board. Why should I be subsidizing Sony, JVC or whomever for a series of poor business decisions. If they'd gotten their act together 2-3 years ago, the HD format would be booming now. Screw them if they can't get their collective act together.

Look, I've got the same audio release in Vinyl, tape (sometimes casette and Elcasette), CD, SACD or DVD-A. I also have video releases in VHS, Beta, and DVD, but I will not invest again in something until the format is decided. I've been an early adopter for close to 40 years, and I'm done with paying for major corporations bad business decisions.

My system is fairly high-end (Sunfire, Bryston, Anthem, Logan ascent i's, Cinema and aerius i, etc), so it would really benefit from the higher definition, but rewarding these dweebs for not being able to decide on one format is not in the cards for me. I just bought an upconverting SD player as an interim step until this thing is decided.

I'm tired of wasting money, buying software that becomes obsolete, acquiring special hardware to allow all the formats to work together properly, paying hefty premiums for players that may, or may not be "last generation" way too fast, etc.

Will my (and millions others) not buying in to an ill-conceived format launch hurt the future of the business - of course not. Maybe all it will do is cause Sony (who's the biggest offender in this area) to come up with a different business model next time, and see that this format stupidity will cause them additional years to get thier investment back.

I understand what you're say, and I'm not going to invest in HD either until everything shakes out. OK, I might do the PS3, but that is not definite. :-)

However, to think that these companies are going to come together to decide on a single format...well, that sh*t ain't gonna happen. If we were talking about technology where there doesn't seem to be a viable competitor, auch as HDMI, then yes, companies can come together and decide on a standard.

It's all about money. In this case though there are two viable competitors and each wants to be the one that 'owns' the technology. Yes, they can make millions/billions selling hardware if everyone agrees on a standard, but the difference is if you have to pay the 'owner' millions/billions to use the technology then that is income potential that is lost (an expense paid to do business). If you are the 'owner' then you get to sell hardware, plus you don't have to pay anyone millions/billions to use their technology (income that is retained) and most importantly, people pay you millions/billions to use your technology (royalty income).

How many people would settle for $X versus $X+$Y? Not me, especially when you consider $Y > $X. It's just plain economics. They are obviously willing to accept a slow start while the shakeout occurs, but they are playing to 'win'. If I were in their position I would do the same thing.

It's not about the consumers. It's about the stockholders/investors. That hasn't changed in big business and is definately not going to happen this time. Consumers don't count. They just have to sell you something. It doesn't have to be the best thing, just something.

I don't like the situation any more than you and I don't have any plans on investing in either format yet either, but I do understand why things are happening the way they are and I'm not nieve enough to think that these giant corporations are going to do anything for my benefit or the benefit of all consumers. It's about their own wallets.

Michael K. Craghead