Ten Reasons Why High Definition DVD Formats Have Already Failed

[Clint DeBoer]

I’m not typically a doom and gloom kind of guy – really, I’m rather optimistic. But this pending format release/war is simply the most ridiculous thing I’ve seen in a long time. The hype machine is entirely enthusiast-created and since that day I realized Steve Jobs could sell a fart provided he sued a public Mac forum for talking about it before its release, I began to understand the power of public mania.

[Read the Editorial]

[BostonMark]

because of the Surround Sound format. However, I find only minor improvement in stereo SACDs and a good CD played on a good system.

I'm already happy with my projector (an Optoma capable of 480p) and love it for DVD viewing. From what I've seen the minor improvement in blu-ray and HD DVD, I'd first have to upgrade my projector, then get an HDMI connection, then get a 1000 Blu ray player, then go out and get movies that are 25 a pop. An investment of an extra 2500 at least just ISN'T worth it to experience a mild improvement. My Mini disc player is already in storage.

Great article, makes me feel all the better for not at all feeling compelled to rush out to get the next minor improvement! Thanks Clint!

(don't know why I said Gene in original post, I think it's because he also writes informative articles, and I hadn't yet had my coffee!)

[Buckeyefan 1]

Great article, makes me feel all the better for not at all feeling compelled to rush out to get the next minor improvement! Thanks Gene!

You mean Clint.

I said mostly agree. The part I'm not in full agreement is on point 8. I wouldn't group HDTV in the same category as 8-track, laserdisc, SACD, and DVD-Audio.

I know you said "possibly" regarding HDTV, but it's a given that all stations will eventually move to a higher resolution format. Right now, TWC offers dvd quality resolution on channels 99-149. They aren't HD, but digitally transmitted. In time, all channels will have this quality. It looks outstanding on a 480i CRT.

What I as a consumer am having issues with is what I'm being charged to rent a DVR, cable tv, and broadband internet access. I'm paying just under $80 a month (I know a lot of you are paying more). To me, this is getting a bit out of hand. $960 a year is a lot compared to what I could be paying for Yahoo DSL at under $20, and digital tv reception if I slap an antenna in the attic ($90 for a good antenna; free tv). $60 a month is a lot to pay for ESPN, Discovery HD, TLC, HGTV, and The Speed Channel. You can rent a lot of movies for $60 a month.

A few items I will not be purchasing anytime soon is a High Def DVD player (either format), any receivers with HDMI (version 1. who cares) pass through, an LCD HDTV until 1080p pricing come down to earth, or a $600 PS3. It's not that I don't want these items, it's that I can't justify the pricing on the hardware or software. I'm guessing a lot of others are in the same boat.

[patnshan]

I agree with Clint's assessment of the issue except for HDTV. I think that it is the future, and is here to stay. It is however, way too expensive. That is because of the monopoly we call Time Warner Cable and others like them.

I currently have analog cable and no boxes. I have 5 TV's, soon to be 6 with my projector. That would be $25/month, soon to be $30/month just for the boxes!!!!! I would buy them if the monopoly would let me. That is absolutely crazy. I pay around $90 for roadrunner and basic analog cable!!! I will reluctantly add one HD box for $8/month and the HD package for another $8/month when I get the projector so that I can join the HD crowd. I will keep analog on the other TV's as long as I can.

I plan to get a 720p projector, as I see no difference in PQ with the twice priced 1080p units. I agree that the difference of 480i to 720p is astonishing, which makes it worthwhile. It is just not worth $4500 to buy a 60 inch LCD when I can have a 120 inch screen 720p for $2000.

I will not buy either HD format player until Oppo or somebody else starts making them for $150 or they make players that can play DVD's as well, or they force me to buy one by making new DVD's only available in the HD formats. Otherwise, forget it.

Pat

[j_garcia]

I agree with almost all of what was said. I'm a fan of SACD and DVD-A, which means the new players are not attractive to me. I'm interested in audio, not so much high quality video, so the higher resolution also isn't a big benefit to me either. I completely agree that the hires sound formats are an opportunity missed by the industry and these two new formats will likely go down the same path. The lack of titles is also a serious drawback IMO.

I disagree somewhat about the PS3 - that will definitely give Sony some good penetration with BR, however I agree that the people buying them will not be buying them for movie watching (like me).

[Clint DeBoer]

I said mostly agree. The part I'm not in full agreement is on point 8. I wouldn't group HDTV in the same category as 8-track, laserdisc, SACD, and DVD-Audio.

Understandable - what I meant was the issue with older, analogue HDTV sets not being HDCP-compliant - potentially rendering the early-adopters out in the cold should they mandate all-HDCP broadcasts or HDMI-only... I added a slight clarification...

[clayman88]

Awesome write-up, Clint. I pretty much agreed with it all except for part of point #3. While I agree that technology and more storage is NOT enough to make HD-DVD/Blu-Ray successfull, I do believe it has ALOT more to offer in the way of quality.

What do the new high definition DVD formats offer consumers over DVD? Technology and more storage.

I think most of the people who are interested in buying a Blu-ray or HD-DVD player are wanting high quality movie experience in 720p or 1080i/p.

I enjoyed the article though.

[Tsunamii]

Great Read. I agree with all of it!!!

[j_garcia]

I think most of the people who are interested in buying a Blu-ray or HD-DVD player are wanting high quality movie experience in 720p or 1080i/p.

I'd say though, that they are in a similar boat as the hires audio formats - the people who are interested are a limited group in the mid and higher end market. You have a small number who will move to it for bragging rights, some just because it is the latest and greatest, and those who are tweakers who are always looking to squeeze every last bit out of their gear This is not representative of the mass market public though.

[hopjohn]

I'd like to add to one of the points that was touched on by Clint but not in quite the same vein as I perceive it. Average Joes who are watching DVDs on a HD set and have seen at least some HDTV be it in store or from over the air are probably not going to truly understand the improvement of 1080p. To them HD is HD, they don't get that ED isn't HD and that there are different flavors of HD that are not of equal quality. The've just upgraded there TV to an HDTV and are elated with the improvements that their Widescreen HDTV gave them with their progressive DVD player and the 50 DVDs they already own, (NO MORE BLACK BARS !!!). They feel so good about their upgrades.

Now you're asking them to upgrade their TV again! to get the full potential of 1080p, buy another DVD player again after they just upgraded to their new $200 progressive player, upgrade their new shiny $600 7.1 receiver again! to get HD Surround, and all the while insinuate that their recent upgrades are obsolete.

I don't know that HD DVD will fail, but agree that it will be a niche market for quite a while. Its saving grace, if any, will be new display technologies that provide the advantages of plasmas thin wall frame but with mind blowing resolution.

Anyone want to editorialize UlrtraHDTV's future?