Exploring the Depths of Format War Ignorance

[kenhoeve]

I’m not in least bit interested in buying a white elephant for now.

I strongly feel this is the wrong attitude to have for an enthusiast. While the masses continue being complacent with poor SD and AQ, I enjoy the finest that my HD, both DVD and broadcast, have to offer. Why skip the opportunity to enjoy what is available even if it may become obsolete in some fashion in coming years?

I think the point people are missing is that apathy toward many different technologies or subjects is a universal truth. Some people only buy cars for point A to B and could care less about how it does it. Some people couldn't tell you the difference between a $50 giclee print and a $50,000 masterpiece original work of art. But there will always be people who DO know the difference and appreciate it for what it means to them.

I don't care if the general population accepts anything I embrace. It's what we choose to care about that matters. That might not be material things at all, and that in itself can be a noble endeavour. I care to enjoy the finest of my several hobbies and don't give a hoot what if anything others choose to do with theirs.

 

[fmw]

Sadly, Terror Beast is right. I see it every day. I explain to my wife how to use the remote to get the local TV channels in HD. She doesn't care. She is just as happy watching them from satellite in SD. She asks why we have three DVD players. I explain they are for different formats. She shrugs her shoulders. She watches them with me so she has the opportunity to see more high quality HD than most people. She couldn't care less. She watches for the content, not the picture quality.

I rented a Blu-Ray version of a movie we own on DVD. I played them both through the same player and asked her which one was better. She thought they both looked the same. She is more typical of most people in this regard than I am.

I think HD will catch on one day, particularly after 2009 when everyone will be transmitting digital. I think people buy it not for the resolution but for the larger screens. Blu-Ray and HD-DVD don't have a chance in my opinion. And that's an opinion from someone who owns and uses both of them. Yes, and I own SACD and DVD-A also.

 

[stratman]

We have to realize we are the minority, most people as pointed out, don't really care as long as the picture is viewable, that's fine. Most folks don't see the wisdom in buying expensive "electronics" just as some folks don't see the need for an $80,000 car to get from point a to point b, I know a man who collects exotics cars, you name it he has it, loves watches you name it he has it, ditto with yachts, his home electronics would leave most audiholics gasping specially when one realizes how much the man is worth financially. Folks it's priorities. Either you're into this or not.

 

[terror_beast]

I can completely understand Kenhoeve's point of view. And so long as you are willing to pay for it, there's almost always a way to get the sort of quality that a real enthusiast wants. I mean heck, if HD-DVD/Blu-ray weren't around, we COULD get HD via D-Theater/D-VHS.

But I think what we, as enthusiasts, are hoping for is for HD to become the de facto standard. Something that does not carry a premium price and offers content as ubiquitous as SD right now. For that to happen, the mass market needs to embrace HD in a BIG way. They would truly have to WANT it and that is the biggest problem right now.

HD is basically being shoved down peoples' throats and in reality, they're just not going for it. Here are some more things to consider:

When you watch a SD TV broadcast or a DVD on a 27" SDTV, it looks just fine! It's only when you buy a significantly larger TV (I'd personally say about 40" and up) that you start to notice how blurry SDTV broadcasts can look. And quite frankly, DVDs still look very sharp and clear, even on a very large screen. When it comes to movies, people are usually comparing the image they see at home to the image they see at a movie theater. This is why people DO like to have a larger screen for movies at home. But a large screen is either too expensive or it takes up too much space in a room or both. So let's not forget that a HUGE number of people out there are going to have 32" or smaller screens and they really aren't even WANTING anything larger. On a screen of that size, HD-DVD/Blu-ray may still look a bit sharper than DVD, but you'd only ever notice if the two were playing side-by-side. Simply put, a DVD looks sharper and clearer than a movie screen at the local cineplex. So why the heck would most people even be asking for anything better? We enthusiasts may know and care that an even better picture can be had. But the average person is already seeing a better image at home with DVD than they see when they go out to a theater. They're perfectly happy with that. And honestly, who can blame them?

So in reality, HD really only matters if you've got a big screen. Lots of people (mostly men - let's face it) lust after having a big screen TV, but lots of people also do not. For all the people who do not, HD is never going to be something that they want because SD really does look just fine on a smaller screen.

For the people who DO want a big screen, HD makes a difference. But the question is: how much of a difference? Enough to pay more for it? With HD broadcast TV, I would say 'yes'. If you have a 50" screen and switch between the SD channels and the HD channels, the difference is usually very noticable. Some people out there still won't care. And frankly, it DOES come down to the content. "Survivor" is only available in SD. Certainly doesn't stop fans of the show from watching it!

But here's the thing. In my current apartment, I only have one choice for getting HDTV. Being in Canada, I really only have 3 choices to begin with (two satellite and one cable since our telephoneTV provider doesn't offer HD yet) and one of those satellite providers really sucks. So right away, Bell ExpressVu and Shaw Cable are my only HD choices. Bell is considerably better, but my building won't allow satellites! So I can ONLY chose Shaw for HD where I live. And Shaw has gone the "HD Lite" route. Every HD channel from Shaw is output at 1440x1080i and it is compressed. That's just the way it is.

When I watch HD, the picture is sharper than a DVD when the image is still. But as soon as something moves, there are image artefacts and compression blocking that become visible. To be honest, I would say that DVDs look better than the HD channels that I get.

Now, the HD channels look substantially clearer than the SD channels. And virtually anyone who comes over notices this. But like I said, DVD looks just as good if not better.

So here's the thing. I can see HD broadcasts becoming fairly popular. It's like going from VHS to DVD, but for broadcast TV. People can see it and they like it. But again, I really think it only matters on a big screen TV.

But going from DVD to HD-DVD/Blu-ray? THAT is something that most people just aren't seeing or caring about. Put them side-by-side and it may be pretty clear. But let's be honest here, when you watch at home, DVD looks fine, even on a big screen. I can't recall ever looking at a DVD on a 50" screen and saying, "wow...that looks so blurry". I have said that about SD broadcasts, but not DVD. DVD looks better than a movie theater - sharper and clearer. The movie theater is the benchmark, not some theoretically better image.

- when I watch

 

[agarwalro]

Technically it is pretty hard. ... I mean, 720p, 1080i, 1080p, HDMI, component, AC3, DTS, HD-DVD, BluRay, HDCP, etc. ... It is not as simple as plugging a coax cable into your TV.

I will have to agree with you on this one. The situation is exacerbated by the need for HD caliber equipment like a 1080p TV, pre/pro or receiver, HD player, cables, etc.

Personally, I find it pretty straight forward, but

I can say that "normal" people look at me like a freak ...I'm certaily no match for some of the guys around here who really know the ins and outs of A/V. Most people think I've gone over the deep end. Ahhh.... if they only knew the true depths some audiophiles sink to. The horror of it all.

I pretty much fall into the same boat as Alex.

 

[ZoFo]

Lot's of us have gone over the deep end!

Although I always had an interest in "Stereos" which back then was all 2-channel, when I first visited this site 3 years ago I was looking for some better speakers for my new Sony RPTV that I had just bought, needed something better than the Bose setup I had. I had no idea I was an "Audioholic" but 3 years, two HT's & numerous upgrades and $18,000 later I would say I now qualify. Once I heard and saw what could be acomplished with todays electronics there was no stoping me, and I feel there are many out there ready for the HD Wakeup Call once they see what can be acomplished with a properly setup system.

I am still pissed off that VOOM failed - still have my VOOM Dish & two receivers - man what a service that was for the whole 6 months I got to enjoy it!

 

[jwkessler]

I'm not surprised at all. I'd like to also know:

1) The % of people who think that buying an HDTV automatically gets them HD, even though they don't have HD cable or sat.
2) The % of people with HDTV's and HD cable who still don't know that they need to switch from channel 2 to 252 to get the HD picture.
3) The % of people who get all of the above right, but still listen to the speakers in their TV's.

You forgot one...

4) The % of people who have the HDTV and the HD cable service, but who connect the cable box to the TV with a composite video cable - or through the modulator.

I personally know 6 people with HD systems at home (this number includes me) and three of them told me they saw no difference watching HD. It turned out they were unaware that you need a component or HDMI cable. I sure hope this isn't indicative of the population as a whole - but I fear it is.

 

[Exit]

It is interesting to see what everyone has had to say on the topic of average consumers getting into HDTV and high definition sources. Best Buy is already trying to beat into everyone’s head that you need a high definition source to see HDTV. It will be interesting if they and the other retailers are able to sell high definition DVD to the general public in a big way.

I think it all depends on selling big screen HDTVs first. Standard TVs (up to 36”) look ok with standard definition sources. The exception is large screen standard definition projection TVs which look pretty bad and are still found in some homes and bars. I think it is when you get over 36” TV sizes that you get the desire for a better HDTV picture. The bigger the screen, the worse standard definition looks, and the more you appreciate high definition. The exact size screen where this realization occurs probably varies from person to person.

I also think a lot of people are buying flat screens to replace standard TVs because they are the latest thing and HDTV may come as a byproduct to them. Also, just because average people are buying flat screens, does not mean they are buying large screens (over 42”) and thus they may not see the need for high definition sources as I mentioned above.

I also think there are a lot of people with standard TVs up to 20 years old and the last time they bought a 32” TV they probably spent $600. Now the price of an HDTV in a bigger size may be several thousand dollars plus additional money for high definition satellite and/or high definition DVD plus expensive cables. This may look pretty expensive. That’s without considering an audio system to go with it. I think this could be a lot of the general public and they might hold onto their old standard TVs as long as possible – even to the point of buying converter boxes after the change to digital TV transmission.

 

[kleinwl]

I also think there are a lot of people with standard TVs up to 20 years old and the last time they bought a 32” TV they probably spent $600. Now the price of an HDTV in a bigger size may be several thousand dollars plus additional money for high definition satellite and/or high definition DVD plus expensive cables. This may look pretty expensive. That’s without considering an audio system to go with it. I think this could be a lot of the general public and they might hold onto their old standard TVs as long as possible – even to the point of buying converter boxes after the change to digital TV transmission.

This is definitely me and many people I know. While I have Directv, I'm not going to replace my 5 year old SD CRT (27") any time soon. When you calculate the cost of a decent HDTV ($1500), an upgrade to HD Directv ($200 HR20 + $15 more/month), Amp/speakers ($1000), it's a heck of a whole lot more than the $300 the old TV cost me in the first place.

In fact, I've gotten more pleasure out of my DVR (SD) than most of the people I see with HDTVs (even HD programing). Many of them come over and go wow... you can watch your favorite shows whenever you like?

I'm big into audio and I love to watch movies... but I don't want to have to get a second job just to support it.

 

[alexsound]

Number of people who don’t know they need an HDTV to view HD content? Survey says… 40. That would be the number of people out of every 100 that have no idea that an HDTV is even required to view HD content. This is according to results of a Best Buy phone survey of 1012 adults in the continental US, as reported by High Def Digest and Home Media Magazine.

Discuss "Exploring the Depths of Format War Ignorance" here. Read the article.

Number of people I know who bought the Toshiba A2 from Walmart? THREE.

Of those 3, how many own an HDTV? 2

Of the 2 that has an HDTV, how is it hooked up ?
One of them is through the composite input on the TV. It's my Uncle. I tried to explain to him he needed to hook the unit up through the component jacks (he has an older 4x3 aspect reatio Mits HD CRT RPTV) but he said I didn't know what I was talking about, yada yada yada. I let it go.

Same thing with the other guy who actually has widescreen HDTV. He has a
standard cable box, going to the TV via the S-vhs hookup, and he hooked up his player via the "yellow" (composite)video connector. That's what he said. He's a co-worker of mine. I didn't even bother explaining anything to him. I knew he wouldn't listen anyways. He thinks his TV looks AWESOME. He has it set to the ZOOM mode on the TV to get rid of the side bars.

I won't even go into #3, other than he has a 60" OLD Mitsubishi NON HD crt rptv. Probably using the "yellow" connector too.