what happens to us brits when High Def DVDs come out?

[tomos]

i mean the yanks already have high-def, so eventually the high def dvd's will come out too. we don't have it in this country at all (as far as i am aware) so will people still buy R1 since i am assuming that if we dont (and wont) have high def in this country then, that the hardware wont be compatible either.

16:9 tv's are increasing in popularity here, but is high def going to appear here any time soon?

[Michael Brooke]

Originally posted by tomos
i mean the yanks already have high-def, so eventually the high def dvd's will come out too. we don't have it in this country at all (as far as i am aware) so will people still buy R1 since i am assuming that if we dont (and wont) have high def in this country then, that the hardware wont be compatible either.

They'll just carry on buying standard R1 DVDs - the chances of those being phased out any time soon are nonexistent. It's a mass market medium, while high-definition DVDs will be a niche market for many years to come.

[Confucius]

Q: What happens to us brits when High Def DVDs come out?

A: I'll buy a Hi-Def DVD player from North America.

[Kryten]

this is probably better suited to the hardware forum.

Moving...

[tomos]

Originally posted by Confucius
Q: What happens to us brits when High Def DVDs come out?

A: I'll buy a Hi-Def DVD player from North America.

and play it on a normal low definition UK television?

[LV426]

Some idiot company (say, Philips) or some idiot country (say, France) will decide that adopting a worldwide standard for HD-DVDs is not a Good Thing. So, we'll get something similar-but-not-quite-the-same-yet-totally-incompatible if they get their way. There is no rational reason for this, but nevertheless it's probably what will (at least try to) happen.

[tomos]

wish we had high-def :(

[MartinC]

I dont see it being a problem, with a decent projector or plasma, you will be able to take the feed of a hidef dvd player.

[andrewh]

I'm confused with regard to the whole HDTV thing.

Am i right in thinking that HDTV is basically a group of tv channels in america that operate on the direct tv (ala rupert murdock system) alongside the usual digital channels, and you need a special tv to take advantage of them.

Where does plasma come into it then, do those in the us just use a certain connection to the digibox to plasma getting the full HDTV benefit.

HDDVD would basically mean a new player and more info on specially designed discs right.

:confused:

[tomos]

you do need a different telly to view them (afaik) since they are a higher definition (ie resolution) to normal telly.

[MartinC]

ignore HDTV in the US.. unlikely we will be getting this anytime soon in the next 5 years.

we are talking about High Def DVDs.. much more likely for us to get these when they come out in the US, and the players come over here.

currently we just have pal & ntsc in this country, ntsc is 480 x 720 (480p), pal 576 x 720 (576p/625p).

for Hidef DVD, its likely to support 720p & 1080i.
720p is 720 x 1280 in pixel terms, 1080i is 1080 x 1920.

even just looking at the numbers, its easy to see that's a whole lot more resolution that we get currently.

generally any video projector from the last year or two will support the correct resolutions, and some of the plasmas also. no standard TVs that you can buy will support this feature.

if you have one of these then you are future-proofed and ready for HiDef DVDs, Blu Ray or whatever they end up calling them.

[Bonzo Banana]

I can see it now. Downloading mpeg4/divx versions of american hd-dvds to play on our computers and writing them to dvdr.

[poggs]

Due to the sheer size of a high def signal (about 10 gigs per hour) it wont fit on dvd's. So you will never get high def dvd's. So that is of no concern to us brits and this posting is a bit of an alarmist scare.

However, it will fit on blu-ray discs that launch in japan this autumn.......

[Feroze]

I've seen Spider-Man on HD-DVD, it was when Sony was showing off it's new Blu-ray player at some exhibition. Quality of the picture looked excellent, sound was a bit pants though.

[Uncle Eric]

HD DVD WILL happen but not for some time. There is already much confusion as many solutions at once have been touted, not just blue ray. As mentioned, it will start off as a niche format just as D Theater is currently a niche format.

I have D Theater in my demo room and have to say it's gobsmackingly jaw dropping.

[Bonzo Banana]

Originally posted by poggs
Due to the sheer size of a high def signal (about 10 gigs per hour) it wont fit on dvd's. So you will never get high def dvd's. So that is of no concern to us brits and this posting is a bit of an alarmist scare.

However, it will fit on blu-ray discs that launch in japan this autumn.......

full movies in high definition format fit on dvd-rs if compressed using mpeg4/divx. Remember a divx film of a dvd can fit on a single cdr with the same resolution and some artifacts. So a pirate divx high definition film should fit on a dvd-r. It really will be possible to view high definition films from dvd-r on home computers fast enough to process the data.

[tomos]

a divx high def on a dvd-r would be like a dvd on a cd-r. short film, not action based should be ok, but a 3 hour movie with loads of actions and sfx i would imagine would be artifact filled. split over 2 and any high def mov would look the same i'd think

[Ian Vinten]

Anyone got a link to info on this blue-ray thing?

[carryonline]

www.bluray.com

[tomos]

why cant they go on to something better? :confused: i mean 25 ish gigs for high def mov - fine, but what about a high def version of a long movie like braveheart (or something else)? with extras as well. would that fit on it ok?
if it is totally newtech anyway and wont play on current players, go wild and create something , like thos fluorescent disks (or summit) that can hold a 150 gigs to a terrabyte of data :notworthy .:luv:

[camaj]

I'm confused with regard to the whole HDTV thing.

Am i right in thinking that HDTV is basically a group of tv channels in america that operate on the direct tv (ala rupert murdock system) alongside the usual digital channels, and you need a special tv to take advantage of them.

Not really, HDTV is a type of video technology like Black and white TV or colour TV is. You can get HDTV channels over the air or via cable in the usa and presumably via direct TV.

If you had a HDTV plasma you could connect a hdtv source to it and watch HDTV. You'll be able to buy HD films on disc (HD-DVD/blu-ray) and watch them on a compatible player.

According to the site posted blu-ray will hold over 2 hours of HD video which is enough for most films. However the dual layer (50GB) version will be out at the end of the year in japan and will also be able to play pre-recorded disc (the current ones can't) so buy the time they're launched outside japan they'll be able to hold over 4 hours of HDvideo although I'm sure there's different bitrates available

[Ridcully]

Sky is rumoured to be launching a small high def offering in 2006

[CLH]

Fortunately my TV (pannie TXPD30) is HD ready with a small authorised mod.

Absolutely no way on earth I'll be replacing anything though.

Mind you after playing Spiderman 3 through it for the first time that may change.

Then we'll have to wait until 2020 for the Star Wars Nineology to reach us.

[BlueDwarf]

Sky is rumoured to be launching a small high def offering in 2006
Not rumours, it's from an official press statement.

[thescrounger]

Yup, SKY is is going HD in 2006.


Besides, I thought most plasmas were HD ready??

[kiran_mk2]

at the moment only the top end plasmas will support 720p fully and most decent projectors only support 720p. As yet, thre are no 1080x1920 displays available apart from large CRT computer monitors. Any 1080 images would be scaled down to 720 on todays equipment. Apparently 1080 LCDs and projectors are launching in q4 this year but i'd bet on them being very overpriced.

[zantarous]

ignore HDTV in the US.. unlikely we will be getting this anytime soon in the next 5 years

Sky are aiming to have a HD service up and running in 2006. And HD TV will go hand in hand with HD-DVD. No HD TV equals high cost in HDTV screens and very little penetration.

Due to the sheer size of a high def signal (about 10 gigs per hour) it wont fit on dvd's. So you will never get high def dvd's. So that is of no concern to us brits and this posting is a bit of an alarmist scare.

HD-DVD is already in the works, a new laser and a new codec, looks as though it will be a toss up between MPEG4 or a MS codec and I believe the DVD Forum is leaning toward MS. The quicker HDTV gets going the quicker we can start enjoying.

[GAmbrose]

By the time either Blue-Ray or HD-DVD has made a significant impact on the market, we will probably be at least 5 years down the road from now and it'll be about time to replace my Plasma screen then anyway :)

So I'll make sure to get one that does 1080i

Gary A

[thescrounger]

Of course Japan have just developed Ultra High-Definition which has a resolution of about 32MP. Unfortunately I don't own a stadium to be able to appreiciate such a ridiculously huge image spec.

[Wayne Moule]

i mean the yanks already have high-def, so eventually the high def dvd's will come out too. we don't have it in this country at all (as far as i am aware) so will people still buy R1 since i am assuming that if we dont (and wont) have high def in this country then, that the hardware wont be compatible either.

16:9 tv's are increasing in popularity here, but is high def going to appear here any time soon?

http://www.euro1080.tv/

[nwgarratt]

tomos wrote,
why cant they go on to something better? :confused: i mean 25 ish gigs for high def mov - fine, but what about a high def version of a long movie like braveheart (or something else)? with extras as well. would that fit on it ok?

There is already dual layer blueray that holds 50GB.

[camaj]

There is already dual layer blueray that holds 50GB.

Well thanks for reading MY post! :brickwall


[hd-dvd] will probably make a significant impact on the market at least 5 years down the road and it'll be about time to replace my Plasma ...So I'll get one that does 1080i

If you look at how fast DVD took off it was only a 2-3 years although there were no format wars and you didn't need a new TV. That said for most people it'll be a case of switching players since they can watch dvd's on the new ones

Also it might be worth sticking with your current plasma, it's not know what format will be used for films or sky-HD so you may find 1080i isn't used as much and of course you're current plasma will downconvert 1080i or the HD source will

[MartinC]

Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinC
ignore HDTV in the US.. unlikely we will be getting this anytime soon in the next 5 years

Sky are aiming to have a HD service up and running in 2006. And HD TV will go hand in hand with HD-DVD. No HD TV equals high cost in HDTV screens and very little penetration.


Smartie pants... ;)

If you notice you're quoting something I posted ages ago in June 2003.

Sky has announced hdtv for late 2006/2007 afaik,
so 5 years wasn't that far off based on June 2003... (1 year out).

If its anything like Sky's use of dolby digital then the initial roll-out/ usage will be minimal and take at least 2 years to have any real market penetration.

[corbas]

HD quality DVDs are out nowand can only be playedon WMP9 on a high spec PC running XP. I have 1 already and it is only 720p resolution. the WMV website has lots of HD demos for media player

[cjb110]

a bit off topic but if you get the small wmvhd logo in both 720 and 1080 try playing them back on a slower pc, both of them work. Now try the trailer (i used scooby do2 at the time) at 1080 and it doesn't work. (well it didn't on my 2.4/2.6 p4) Now if the smaller trailer work surely the longer one should too...

on topic, I think its been said but HD TV will have to appear before people change the probly reasonably new widescreen crt's (after all the expectation always was your tv would last 5-10 years). HD (either DVDHD or BlueRay) movies will appear earlier, as will the players (simple manufacturing makes it stupid to produce wildey different models) so people with the display will just need a new player. The middle easter cheapos will help here as they will appear a lot quicker this time around.

All in all everything will be fine and exactly the same, some nuts will replace every dvd with a hd ver, most wont, some will watch hd on there current tv's, and quite a few will still use their 4:3 tv's. evolution was killed off centuries ago:D

[zantarous]

Smartie pants... ;)

If you notice you're quoting something I posted ages ago in June 2003.
:eek:

:lol: I didn't even notice till you mentioned it.

[GAmbrose]

Well thanks for reading MY post! :brickwall




If you look at how fast DVD took off it was only a 2-3 years although there were no format wars and you didn't need a new TV. That said for most people it'll be a case of switching players since they can watch dvd's on the new ones

Thats true, but now that DVD has attained mass market status I can't see another format coming along and being as successful for some time.

DVD offered a significant picture and sound advantage, even on existing Television technology because the resolution is so much better than VHS, along with all the other benefits (Less storage space, Commentary's, extras etc)

HD-DVD/Blue-Ray will of course produce amazing pictures, and as you say the players will be backwards compatible with current DVD's, but there won't be much of a reason for most people to suddenly switch to High resolution as not many people will be able to take advantage anyway.

And sure, that means even more space for extras. But take the Lord of the Rings: Extended Editions for instance, it's about as comprehensive a set as you could ask for, and although I am sure New Line will milk it and release it all again on HD-DVD with even more extras and maybe even more tweaking from Peter Jackson but to 'The masses' it's still not really going to be anything that will interest them.

I wouldn't get rid of the Plasma in 5 years by the way, i'd probably just use it as a secondary TV in my bedroom or something ;)

Gary A

[camaj]

Thats true, but now that DVD has attained mass market status I can't see another format coming along and being as successful for some time.

I don't think HD will come and sweep everything away like DVD did but the jump in quality from DVD to HD is almost the same as VHS to DVD.

I think its been said but HD TV will have to appear before people change the probly reasonably new widescreen crt's (after all the expectation always was your tv would last 5-10 years). HD movies and players will appear earlier, so people with the display will just need a new player.

I think we'll start seeing the first HD models marketed around spring 05. You might think no one will buy them if there's no source to connect it too but if you were going to buy a new TV why would you buy one that's about to become obsolete? I think it'll be important to get the HD message out there so that people who are in the process of buying, buy something that's future proof.

Of course some people might get them anyway and they're current video sources will look great and they might be able to get things that improve the SD picture. For the most part though I'd expect brits to have to wait until autumn 05 before blu-ray is launched. Like dvd I'd imagine PC owners will be amoung the first adopters assuming there are drives available at the time.

So there'd be a few early adopters getting TV's then and then more when SKY HD comes out. I think that'll be early 06 but Sky has just said 2006. I'd imagine they'd want it to be established by WC Germany 06 which will attract a lot of people.After that I think there'll be steady growth

[kiran_mk2]

Like dvd I'd imagine PC owners will be amoung the first adopters assuming there are drives available at the time.

This is almost certainly true - PC owners will prbably reap the benefits even more because you can really see the limited resolution of DVDs when you play them on a high res monitor. OK, most monitors will have to downscale 1080 images, but 720p will play back fine - some of the WM9 clips look absolutely amazing.

I saw some HDTVs on sale in the US recently and I have to say the difference was amazing.

[camaj]

How do you find the native resolution of a monitor? I'm pretty sure mine supports 480p video but most people won't have monitors that support 720p I'd image that'd have to be downscaled too. I think all moitors are prog scan anyway so that's why video looks better on a monitor even if it's dvd

[Niceguygeoff]

I just got me a new plasma in readiness for the Hi-Def goodness that will come our way...eventually. As long as Sky's system doesn't cost too much I'll sign up for that, and HD-DVD (whatever form it'll take) will also find itself a home at Casa Niceguygeoff.

[DeadKenny]

To the vast majority in the UK High Def will be a very expensive luxury that's way beyond their reach and most will not see it a worthwhile expense.

Sky will be offering a limited service but you won't see everything suddenly going High Def overnight. It will take many years. You'll need new boxes (including Sky+) and possibly new dishes, and these won't come free, but will cost a few hundred £.

The BBC have mentioned High Def too.

The major reason High Def is taking off in the US is because when they went digital and started promoting widescreen, they put High Def into the digtal TV spec and made all their HDTV sets widescreen.

In the UK we went for the budget option... digitize PAL. The result is loads of nice cheap widescreen TVs unlike in the US.

At the moment the British public has undergone a major expense in upgrading to digital TV, DVDs and widescreen, and they're not going to change any time soon.


The problem will be if HD-DVD takes off in the US and replaces DVD. Though I can't see that likely for a while, if it did happen, only those of us with very expensive equipment that can handle HD will benefit and even then we may need to import players or build Home Theatre PCs to do the job.


On top of all this you've got standards wars to come. Not just the battle over the High Def DVD formats, but also whether the UK adopts the same system as the US for HDTV. Historically Europe has battled against adopting US "standards".

[camaj]

At the moment the British public has undergone a major expense in upgrading to digital TV, DVDs and widescreen, and they're not going to change any time soon.

But maybe in the next 4 years. Anyway I'd say most people still don't have W/S and if they do it was a sub £200 jobbie, they probably bought their dvd players for £50 and most people spent nothing on digital TV except for the odd few that get freeview and that won't be effected for some time I imagine.
I'd say vitually no one has a dvd recorder despite a lot of people saying they'd wait for that before they'd buy DVD but blu-ray will be recordable from the off so I'd imagine it'd eclipse DVD-r very quickly

It seems this time we'll be almost the same as the US but with a PAL framerate. I would like to see a dual frame rate in the spec so they have the option of transmitting US material without conversion.

[Wayne Moule]

Very good priced HDTV CRT's are on the market already from Hitachi aren't they, so HD widescreen sets are already priced near the price of non HD CRT screens?

[thescrounger]

On top of all this you've got standards wars to come. Not just the battle over the High Def DVD formats, but also whether the UK adopts the same system as the US for HDTV. Historically Europe has battled against adopting US "standards".

SKY has the market though. So whatever it chooses will become the mainstream standard for the UK.

I also don't think the uptake of HD will be as slow as you think either.

[DeadKenny]

SKY has the market though. So whatever it chooses will become the mainstream standard for the UK.

I also don't think the uptake of HD will be as slow as you think either.


The simple test of that would be to ask your parents questions like...

1. Do you want a DVD player?
2. Do you want a widescreen TV?
3. Do you want an HDTV?


To which the answers my parents would give...

1. Yes (well they've already got one).
2. Possibly when the old TV dies (they've had the thing for 10 years and keep repairing it rather than buy a new one :oh-hum: ).
3. What's HDTV? HOW MUCH!! I don't think so.


If your average punter who hasn't got a clue can get excited about HDTV then it will take off big time, otherwise it will remain a niche market for a while.

It will get there eventually, but we'd then be talking about a "non-High-Def digital TV turnoff" situation before the majority can be pushed towards HDTV. Given analogue TV turn off is a way off yet, that's not going to happen for a long time.

[thescrounger]

Sure it may take a couple of years to establish when it arrives, but that really is no time at all.

HDTV will be pushed quite heavily when it arrives, it won't be as slow an uptake as previous technology. Sure the old fogies won't care, but the market for that age group was never there in the first place.

[Wayne Moule]

Mmm, I can't see loads of people rushing for Sky HDTV @ the higher prices.

[zantarous]

I don’t think HDTV will be that more expensive over current model CRT’s especially as you can have HD ready TV’s without tuners, so you can simply just plug in your cable or satellite box. Although this would have been so much easier had it been built into the original spec.

Lots of people have bought widescreen without knowing what is, how many people do you know that are watching on widescreen TV and just stretch the pic on 4:3 material think that is the way it should be watched? I can imagine lost of people buying HD sets think that they are getting HD programming by just plugging it in.

[AndyWilson]

My original long post on this just vanished in the Forums reshuffle :( but I'll just reiterate... 99% of viewers have no interest in the picture quality improvements of HDTV so how on earth do you sell it to them??

DVD was sold on CD-like convenience, Widescreen in the UK on seeing "more" of the picture, Digital Satellite and Terrestrial on more channels to choose from...

In the US HDTV was sold primarily to sports fans who were watching blurry NTSC games on huge screens, I can't see any USP for HDTV in the UK unless it's pushed with exclusive programming...

[DeadKenny]

When the likes of Goodmans, Bush and Beko do HDTV sets for £200, then it will be a success. Going by US trends they're not near that yet and HDTV is still a luxury expensive item.

Displays without tuners that are HD ready are called TFTs and projectors. We've had them for ages. They're not cheap.

[James45]

at the moment only the top end plasmas will support 720p fully and most decent projectors only support 720p. As yet, thre are no 1080x1920 displays available apart from large CRT computer monitors. Any 1080 images would be scaled down to 720 on todays equipment. Apparently 1080 LCDs and projectors are launching in q4 this year but i'd bet on them being very overpriced.

There are home cinema CRT projectors that can do 1080i, it's just nothing (afaik) can do 1080p yet.

[zantarous]

Displays without tuners that are HD ready are called TFTs and projectors. We've had them for ages. They're not cheap.

So I take it you have not seen the Rear Projection or CRT’s that are HD ready in the US that do not have tuners. Just last year my mum bought a HD ready 51” RP Sony from her local Circuit City for $1800 dollars.

Plus if Europe adopt similar HD standard to the US and Japan then manufactures can make one model and tailor it to individual countries. Look at a lot of the DVD players we have they can be sold and used in almost any country in the world, dual power, both NTSC and PAL and a verity of connections.

At first HD will be expensive but tuner less CRT or RP at a reasonable price will not be far off especially once Bush, Thompson and such like get involved.

[thescrounger]

My original long post on this just vanished in the Forums reshuffle :( but I'll just reiterate... 99% of viewers have no interest in the picture quality improvements of HDTV so how on earth do you sell it to them??

...

You show it to them.

And watch their mouths fall open at the superior quality. Which will be very apparrent to them watching sports events etc.

Seriously, put up a few demos in places like John Lewis and dixons. They will see a huge difference between HD and the smeary blurry artifact ridden displays of Standard Definition.

[DeadKenny]

Seriously, put up a few demos in places like John Lewis and dixons. They will see a huge difference between HD and the smeary blurry artifact ridden displays of Standard Definition.

:lol::lol::lol:

Dixons have never in their life been able to set up a decent demonstration. All their TVs look like really bad examples of poor analogue reception, even when it's a top of the range TV with a decent digital input (Sky, DVD, etc) :gag:

There's no way the likes of Dixons will be able to demonstrate the difference, and not to mention the fact the staff would be clueless.

Seriously though, the average British punter doesn't look at the picture quality much, they look at the price and style of the set. It doesn't matter how much you tell them it looks better, if the difference is £1000 in price, they're going to buy that cheap non-High Def £200 Bush telly ;). HDTVs won't be that cheap for a long time in the UK, tuner or no tuner. At the moment you can't even buy HDTV CRTs in the UK high street.

[thescrounger]

Of course you can't buy them in the high street. Theres no HD yet. :cuckoo:

That's a lot of generalisations you've made in one post there btw. At this stage we have no idea of the cost or the publics reaction. These are all speculative points you are making. And a lot of it will be dependant on SKYs marketing, which may be pretty good.

It's fairly obvious that you are against it, you can tell. :nuts: :lol:

It's called the future so get used to it.

[camaj]

99% of viewers have no interest in the picture quality improvements of HDTV so how on earth do you sell it to them??

Where can I obtain details of this thorough study of the population and HDTV? Like the scrounger says once most people see the difference they'll want it, not neccessarily everyone but at least 50% and they'll buy when they feel they can. Of course that depends if the shops display them in the best way.

The good thing is TFT's and plasma's have been falling in price steadily so while the yanks have been paying through the nose when it launches here I expect a decent sized set to be less than £500.

Also take a look at the electronic magazines you can buy. The latest screens are raved about but the difference between one that's 5 star and one that's 3 would be hard to spot for most people but HDTV will just seaze the top end of the market and all those £1k + SDTV's will have to be sold at far lower price

I'm not aware of any CRT models available in the uk and most of the TFT's plasmas only support 720p max

[CLH]

I'm not aware of any CRT models available in the uk and most of the TFT's plasmas only support 720p max

Allegedly the Panasonic TX-36PD30 is HDTV ready. Not sure how it does this but it needs modding by an engineer. Perhaps it uses its acuity processing to achieve the line structure.

On the original topic the way the UK public view their Tv broadcast is changing. I went in to a smaller Dixons store on Saturday.

Their ratio of plasma/lcd screens to CRT was close to 70:30. A few weeks earlier it was about 60:40 in favour of CRT. Things are changing fast on the high street.

[DeadKenny]

It's fairly obvious that you are against it, you can tell. :nuts: :lol:

It's called the future so get used to it.

Not at all. I'm certainly for it, just I have a realistic view (i.e. pesimistic as is the norm with the British ;)) :D

My view was completely the opposite when DVD came about as there were many laserdisc fans who were knocking DVD and saying it would never succeed and yet I knew it would. With HDTV I can see the incentive for people to upgrade just isn't there. A better quality picture is not the "killer feature" of HDTV that will make it sell big time in the UK, just the same as better quality was not for DVD (the main factor for most was getting rid of bulky tapes and having video on a disc that looked just like a CD).

In the US the better quality picture is perhaps a killer feature however. As pointed out they have huge TVs over there to watch sports on, and the better picture is key to it. We're not so big on watching sports on huge TVs here.

However, I'm prepared to be pleasantly surprised if HDTV does become mainstream within 2 years of launch in the UK ;)

As for "when people see it they'll want it".... well, a lot of people want a mansion and posh cars when they see them, doesn't mean they can afford it ;)

Remember the majority of the TV buying public in the UK are not home cinema enthusiasts, but are just the average punter who wants a little telly to tuck away in the corner of the room, and will spend a few hundred quid on it.


The one possible killer feature that might sell HDTV in the UK is Plasma or more like LCD TVs, because for a lot of people it's the asthetics that count and there is a huge demand for less bulky TVs. Even my parents keep saying what they'd like is a completely flat TV. They wouldn't care a bit about higher quality picture, just so long as the set doesn't take up too much space.

Price is the important thing. Plasmas and LCDs are too expensive for the average buyer. No matter how many they have in Dixon, they end up buying the budget CRT telly.

[thescrounger]

Unless you've done a survey I'm just going to have to assume you've made all of this up in your head.

More and more people are buying plasmas these days. Thanks to credit cards. Yes even the average buyer.

[Wayne Moule]

I think the public are interested in picture quality, that's one of the reasons why DVDs and Digital TV took off.

[DeadKenny]

Unless you've done a survey I'm just going to have to assume you've made all of this up in your head.

More and more people are buying plasmas these days. Thanks to credit cards. Yes even the average buyer.

Observation mate ;). The vast majority aren't buying plasmas I can tell you (even if they do have credit cards). I know very few people with plasmas and I see very few buying them in the shops. Sure there are more buying them, but plasma sales make up a small percentage of sales. Most are 4:3 and 16:9 CRTs, all under £500.

I don't have statistics to hand but if you were to go and find some I'm fairly certain it would back up what I'm saying.

[zantarous]

My view was completely the opposite when DVD came about as there were many laserdisc fans who were knocking DVD and saying it would never succeed and yet I knew it would. With HDTV I can see the incentive for people to upgrade just isn't there. A better quality picture is not the "killer feature" of HDTV that will make it sell big time in the UK, just the same as better quality was not for DVD (the main factor for most was getting rid of bulky tapes and having video on a disc that looked just like a CD).


I would be very surprised if the sole reason for DVD’s penetrating the market so quickly was down to the fact it looked like a CD. It didn’t work in a CD player, the first units were very expensive (well they were when I first saw them Japanese imports in Tottenham Court Road).

Every article I have ever read on DVD and its storm into the mainstream market was due to the fact it had superior sound and picture. Even my wife who has little interest in the technical side of HT marvelled at how much better films looked on DVD after all it gave you twice the resolution of VHS. The jump may not be so apparent on HDTV unless you have a large TV but there is no denying the leap forward.

Home cinema equipment is being sold like crazy at the moment, infact after a demo on my home system my neighbour, someone who had no interest in HT went and bought a DVD/surround sound system.

I can understand what you are saying and believe me no one thinks that HD will be the norm two years after launch or even ten years, look at the US even HD penetration is low with most people being content with SD at the moment. There is a long struggle ahead but hopefully like widescreen HD will prevail. Manufactures have been producing HD set for a number of years now in other countries this will help cut the prices quicker, TV are generally reasonably priced and it will not be long before affordable units hit the store, this may take one or two years.

And there is at least one Panasonic CRT that can accept a 1080i signal through component and retails for £1400.

[thescrounger]

I don't have statistics to hand but if you were to go and find some I'm fairly certain it would back up what I'm saying.

I doubt it. Just because your friends don't have any, doesn't mean they are selling less than CRTs.

That's like me saying iPods aren't selling, just because I only have a couple of mates that have one.

[DeadKenny]

I doubt it. Just because your friends don't have any, doesn't mean they are selling less than CRTs.

And just because you think Plasmas are outselling CRTs doesn't mean they are. I cannot believe for a second that they are, but if you are to provide some proof I will stand corrected ;)

I suggest spending a day in Dixons (god forbid!:gag: ) and watch who really buys what there. In a week you might see a few plasma sales but daily you'll see a lot of CRT sales for budget models.

[CLH]

And just because you think Plasmas are outselling CRTs doesn't mean they are. I cannot believe for a second that they are, but if you are to provide some proof I will stand corrected ;)

I suggest spending a day in Dixons (god forbid!:gag: ) and watch who really buys what there. In a week you might see a few plasma sales but daily you'll see a lot of CRT sales for budget models.

If my nearby Dixons is a barometer I'd disagree. There simply are few CRT's left in there. And the next door Comet is little better.

[thescrounger]

Anything cheaper is bound to sell more. In the same regard I've never witnessed iPods selling in droves either but they are. Just because I don't happen to see it when it happens doesn't mean it isn't.

One thing I have noticed in the electrical section of John Lewis is you get a ton of people more interested and checking out the plasmas over the CRts, thats a fact.

[DeadKenny]

One thing I have noticed in the electrical section of John Lewis is you get a ton of people more interested and checking out the plasmas over the CRts, thats a fact.

Yeah, but do they buy them? I mean, I always like checking out the nice expensive models, just like I'd check out an expensive car when I see one, but doesn't mean I'll buy it.

John Lewis has a higher class of clientele than your average Dixons though ;)

Do you seriously think that the average punter on 20k or less salary is going round buying £2k Plasma tellies?

[CLH]

"One of Europe's largest electrical retailers, Dixons Group - which owns Dixons, PC World, Currys, Elkjop and UniEuro - has reported trunover up 13%. The company was forced to close some outlets in the past year to stem disappointing results. Now, thought, the company says sales of plasma and LCD TV screens, laptops, DVD players and didgital cameras has boosted sales by 3%. PC World turnover increased 6%, but that was offset by a disappointing fall of 6% within Dixons stores."

[thescrounger]

Do you seriously think that the average punter on 20k or less salary is going round buying £2k Plasma tellies?

My best friend did. Last year in fact. Bought a 42 inch jobbie.

[camaj]

A better quality picture is not the "killer feature" of HDTV, just the same as better quality was not for DVD (the main factor for most was getting rid of bulky tapes and having video on a disc that looked just like a CD).

In the US the better quality picture is perhaps a killer feature however. As pointed out they have huge TVs over there to watch sports on, and the better picture is key to it. We're not so big on watching sports on huge TVs here.

However, I'm prepared to be pleasantly surprised if HDTV does become mainstream within 2 years of launch in the UK ;)

I'd be shocked! It took at least 4 years for DVD to do it and it's far easier to do. 6-8 years is probably a more reasonable time frame. That doesn't mean to say it won't get a good hold early on, it just won't be mainstream.

I disagre about the killer feature, I think it was picture but all the other things were very important. I think it'll be the same for HDTV but it'll also be a reason for people to upgrade to flat screen models. There's not a big reason to buy plasma/tft yet but when HDTV comes it'll be an attractive proposition to get a thin screen that does HDTV at the same time.

The big TV thing is inaccurate as far as I know. HDTV will look better than SDTV on big screens but not better than HDTV on small screens other than it being bigger of course

[Niceguygeoff]

Do you seriously think that the average punter on 20k or less salary is going round buying £2k Plasma tellies?

Well...yeah! I've bought one meself. And at work we've recently had a tremendous run on an end-of-line 32" plasma (£2K), and also a 42" LCD rear-projection set (£1800). Most of our customers scoff at the plasmas and LCDs going for £4K, but get the prices down to around about the £2K mark (or lower) for big screens and people suddenly become very interested, especially with the HP service that we offer.

Give people a legitimate reason to have such a big-ass screen (like HD for example!) and I think the screens would start to sell even more. Prices for such sets will have fallen further by the time Sky launch their HD service, so with a marketing blitz I'm sure that HD-ready plasma, LCD and LCD rear-pro sets (especially the latter which is far cheaper even now) would fly off the shelves. And the 2006 World Cup in HD would be a great boost to the format - HD did start off broadcasting sports in the US - but can the BBC/ITV get their act together in time? Digital Terrestrial HD is nothing but a pipe dream, but if the BBC and ITV could broadcast WC2006 in HD over Sky's platform then HD would get a great shot in the arm.

It'd also be great if full PAL specifications are included in the finalized HD-DVD specs, as the wait for a DVD-Forum ratified PAL progressive standard was drawn out over a ridiculously long period. Such hold-ups would bode ill for a UK, and by proxy European, launch of HD-DVD, so it'd be great if the industry bods could make sure that PAL HD specs (for both home video and broadcast, come to think of it) are finalized right from the off. In the meantime, I'm considering getting a D-VHS player on the cheap just to get a taste of HD here and now. My plasma has 1024 horizontal lines, so HD should be a tasty prospect.

[camaj]

I think most if not all d-vhs tapes are 1080 lines so you won't get full res. It's probably easier and cheaper to wait for Blu-ray.

It'd be in sky's and the BBC's interest to work together on the WC 2006. Sky won't have the rights but they could provide the BBC with a way of broadcasting and gain subscribers by doing so. So all in all it'd work out pretty good all round

[zantarous]

No one has mentioned the inclusion of multi channel sound, after all home cinema all in one packages is a top seller for places like Currys and Dixons, I am sure a lot of people out there who have bought these items wonder why the sound from their TV does not sound as good as their DVD's.

And it's ludicrous to say Brits don't like watching sports on a big TV, we have never had the option before, I would imagine one of the aspects of going to the pub is so you can watch football on the big screen.

[AndyWilson]

No one has mentioned the inclusion of multi channel sound, after all home cinema all in one packages is a top seller for places like Currys and Dixons, I am sure a lot of people out there who have bought these items wonder why the sound from their TV does not sound as good as their DVD's.

And it's ludicrous to say Brits don't like watching sports on a big TV, we have never had the option before, I would imagine one of the aspects of going to the pub is so you can watch football on the big screen.

Well, sports-loving brits have rarely shown any inclination to buy 50" screens, unlike our friends across the atlantic....

[zantarous]

Well, sports-loving brits have rarely shown any inclination to buy 50" screens, unlike our friends across the atlantic....

Well if you really think about how long have affordable big screens been available to us? It’s only in the last few years. You can now walk into Dixons and get 42" RP TV for £800. Just seven or eight years ago these same sets would have put you back £4000. There are people that I know who I thought had no interest in big screens yet have now seen these prices and gone and bought them.

Heck even my wife wanted a 36” CRT after I pointed out to her it would be the same price on-line as the 32” in store and now tells me how small her mum’s TV looks so small. It’s a trend that is changing.

[SPB]

I regularly check out the Plasmas, I earn a reasonable wage, but I can not justify paying £2k+ to replace my 32" widescreen. I bet I am in the (large) majority.

I predict plasmas aren't going to be mainstream until they are <= £1000 for a good set. The day will come, but not for a couple of years until the economies of scale kick in and production techniques are improved = cheaper costs.

[Jimmyboy]

I just wish Hollywood and the film industry and their various technology investors would spend as much time and effort into making films that are actually worth watching as they do trying to increase the resolution of the crap they tend to turn out.

Does anyone remember a time when films were all pan and scan 4:3 on ropey old VHS complete with a fag burn in the print every 2 minutes? A nighmare I know but back then the only question people asked was whether or not the film was actually worth watching. I feel that sometimes it's easy to forget the reasons why cinema became popular in the first place in this technological digital age where increasingly resolution statistics and through the roof bitrate charts become a more important factor than the quality of the film itself. :)

[zantarous]

I bet my bottom dollar that hi def is a Hollywood’s film executives worst nightmare, imagine a perfect copy of their product, sound encoded using a lossless codec. I do believe the Hollywood boys will be working out ways to make sure we have to jump through hoops to get the best out of our kits.

Does anyone remember a time when films were all pan and scan 4:3 on ropey old VHS complete with a fag burn in the print every 2 minutes? A nighmare I know but back then the only question people asked was whether or not the film was actually worth watching. I feel that sometimes it's easy to forget the reasons why cinema became popular in the first place in this technological digital age where increasingly resolution statistics and through the roof bitrate charts become a more important factor than the quality of the film itself.

Thing is though VHS never sold in the quantity that DVD has. Most of us on this board will admit to not having bought a lot of VHS tapes but have bought lots of DVD. The two go hand in hand together, a better viewing experience makes you want to watch more films. And if you start watching a lot of films you want to make sure the picture and sound are up to scratch.

Also I can not agree that films are now lacking, we have just as many good films to watch now as we did twenty years ago. Infact DVD has opened up the foreign market and made it quite accessible, which without I would never have seen such enjoyable films: Taxi, Hero, Infernal Affairs, Shaolin Soccer and Amelie.

[DeadKenny]

Thing is though VHS never sold in the quantity that DVD has. Most of us on this board will admit to not having bought a lot of VHS tapes but have bought lots of DVD.

I bought around 200 VHS in my time, and it's only recently that I've exceeded that on DVD :D

However, VHS was mainly a rental market until the 90s, and it was a huge market. Millions of the tapes would be watched over and over in the worst possible Pan & Scan, worn tape (and heads) blurry quality, and no one could care one bit, so long as they could see the film.

Ask my parents why they've got DVD and it won't be because of quality. It's convienience as far as they're concerned. "No more bulky tape", "it looks like a CD", and "everyone else is getting DVD" are their reasons.

Their cheap 21" Goodmans telly wouldn't be able to show the difference between a poor quality VHS and a DVD anyway, so they don't care. They've seen my set up and yes they're impressed, but it won't make them buy a widescreen TV (they say the sets are too big anyway!) and certainly wouldn't push them to buying HD, especially when their budget is about £200 max and the sets will be way over £1000.

I'd say they represent a typical "average" customer. The kind of people who don't frequent forums like this, aren't Home Cinema fans or even Hi Fi fans. They buy cheap electronic goods because it's cheap and does the job, and quality is not important to them (no matter how many times I tell them :D)

As far as they're concerned the only TV gadget they'd now like is a DVD recorder. Not because of the quality, but because it gets rid of tapes.

They got Sky Digital only because they got bored of channels 1 to 4 and wanted some more. On their telly the picture looks about as good as it did with terrestrial analogue reception.


My point is, not matter how much you wet yourselves over HDTV and assume because we all want it, the majority of the UK public want it, basic sales and marketing economics come into play and it will be gradually rolled out over many years to a small exclusive niche market, until a point when the sets are cheap enough to effectively bin the non-HD sets so HDTV is the only choice. That will take about 10 years I'd estimate. Doesn't mean we won't have HDTV in the next few years, but it's just that the "majority" of the public won't have it within the next few years. What it will mean is the availability of HD material will be limited for a number of years.

I believe the statistics in the US is that HDTV ownership still accounts for only a very small percentage. We're a long way behind them.


P.S. Not wanting to make a sexist statement but :D... I'd say one possible reason for the low "big telly" spending in the UK is more down to the female half of some relationships than anything else ;) (and something reinforced by the hundreds of home make-over shows on TV which insist on hiding the TV wherever possible. Small little telly, tucked away in the corner of a room ;)).

[Jimmyboy]

My point is, not matter how much you wet yourselves over HDTV and assume because we all want it, the majority of the UK public want it, basic sales and marketing economics come into play and it will be gradually rolled out over many years to a small exclusive niche market, until a point when the sets are cheap enough to effectively bin the non-HD sets so HDTV is the only choice. That will take about 10 years I'd estimate. Doesn't mean we won't have HDTV in the next few years, but it's just that the "majority" of the public won't have it within the next few years. What it will mean is the availability of HD material will be limited for a number of years.


True and when it does start to become available to the mass-market it will likely be a poorly made cheap copy of what it currently is simply because without cost cutting it will never be accessible to people who buy 1 TV every 10 to 15 years and will spend as little as possible under the belief that all TV's are the same. Even today the quality of CRT widescreen sets are noticeably of poor build qaulity compared to 10 years previous when widescreen was a niche market.

[zantarous]

P.S. Not wanting to make a sexist statement but ... I'd say one possible reason for the low "big telly" spending in the UK is more down to the female half of some relationships than anything else (and something reinforced by the hundreds of home make-over shows on TV which insist on hiding the TV wherever possible. Small little telly, tucked away in the corner of a room ).

I feel like smacking that stupid house doctor every time I see her on TV.

I bought around 200 VHS in my time, and it's only recently that I've exceeded that on DVD

Well you will find some did some didn’t I have about ten VHS tapes and that is it, but in two and a bit years have amassed a collection of over two hundred plus DVD and boxsets. VHS never sold in the same amount that DVD is, infact the format has even changed the way some companies do business like the abolition of the rental window as more and more people are buying instead of renting.

Ask my parents why they've got DVD and it won't be because of quality. It's convienience as far as they're concerned. "No more bulky tape", "it looks like a CD", and "everyone else is getting DVD" are their reasons.

Just because that is what your parents say does not mean that is what everyone will say. I just asked my wife why she likes DVD over VHS tapes, and this is a women who has no interest in the technical side of AV and can just about work the set up, she replied:

Because the picture is better, DVDs last longer and don’t wear out and that surround sound sounds better then the TV.

Believe me I understand what you are saying Kenny no one here is under the assumption that HD will be an overnight success, however it will happen. I remember people saying mobile phones were a fad look at that now, satellite TV was only rich people, people were baffled as to why you would want a satellite when you had four channels or could get cable TV.

Their cheap 21" Goodmans telly wouldn't be able to show the difference between a poor quality VHS and a DVD anyway, so they don't care.

The difference is there, weather they have the knowledge to see it or not is different. If you don’t know about these things they don’t tend to bug you, I still can not see this edge enhancement that people go on about but doesn’t mean it ain’t there.

As far as they're concerned the only TV gadget they'd now like is a DVD recorder. Not because of the quality, but because it gets rid of tapes.

They got Sky Digital only because they got bored of channels 1 to 4 and wanted some more. On their telly the picture looks about as good as it did with terrestrial analogue reception.

Your parents are more technically inclined then you give them credit for, they enjoy DVD a DVD recorder is just natural progression. Digital TV is not about picture quality, a lot of stuff like sport looks far worse on digital then it did on analogue, it’s about choice.

You base your opinion on what your parents say, my mum lives in the US and asked my advice on what TV to get and I told her you might as well get a HDTV, she asked why and I told her it was the best kind and that was enough for her.

I have already mentioned in a previous post that my next door neighbour bought a all in one DVD surround package after hearing mine, now it turns out that the couple that live below them sampled her system on Sunday night and bought one as well the next day. Weather this was done to keep up with the Jones as it were or because it was an amazing experience is still up for a debate however the end result is still the same.

True and when it does start to become available to the mass-market it will likely be a poorly made cheap copy of what it currently is simply because without cost cutting it will never be accessible to people who buy 1 TV every 10 to 15 years and will spend as little as possible under the belief that all TV's are the same. Even today the quality of CRT widescreen sets are noticeably of poor build qaulity compared to 10 years previous when widescreen was a niche market.

Some of what you say is true and some isn’t. If you look at this way, people are buying TV’s everyday, go to your local Dixons or Currys on a Saturday afternoon. People may indeed keep sets for 10 or fifteen years however that still means that a lot of people will be replacing set all the time.

Build may be of lower quality on cheaper sets, just like comparing a ford to a BMW, you buy what you can afford, they however would wipe the floor in terms of features and picture quality of models ten years old.

Rant over.

[Jimmyboy]

Some of what you say is true and some isn’t. If you look at this way, people are buying TV’s everyday, go to your local Dixons or Currys on a Saturday afternoon. People may indeed keep sets for 10 or fifteen years however that still means that a lot of people will be replacing set all the time.

Build may be of lower quality on cheaper sets, just like comparing a ford to a BMW, you buy what you can afford, they however would wipe the floor in terms of features and picture quality of models ten years old.

Rant over.

People don't replace TV set's all the time though, assuming they change them say every 8 - 10 years (which seems like a reasonable judgement to make) the market can't grow without cost cutting. The major difference between TV's and all the other technological devices you've mentioned in your posts like dvd players and mobile phones is that people replace those for newer models frequently thus driving that particular industry to a point where it can improve the hardware and still keep cost down. Even with cars it's not uncommon for people to part-ex for newer plates every 3 to 4 years. The same can't be said for televisions. There won't be any real difference between the quality of the manufacturers like you mention because they will all be forced to cut cost as the market is so slim that refusing to do so will result in no sale at all. This is exactly what we've seen with CRT sets, it doesn't matter if you buy a Panasonic or a Philips or a Beko, they will all contain faults of some kind and there won't be much more than £100 max price difference between them for the same spec TV.

[camaj]

Their cheap 21" Goodmans telly wouldn't be able to show the difference between a poor quality VHS and a DVD anyway

What!? I know it mightn't be the best TV available but you'd have to be half blind not to tell the difference between VHS and DVD on any tv set!

My point is, not matter how much you wet yourselves over HDTV and assume because we all want it, the majority of the UK public want it, basic sales and marketing economics come into play and it will be gradually rolled out over many years to a small exclusive niche market, until a point when the sets are cheap enough to effectively bin the non-HD sets so HDTV is the only choice. That will take about 10 years I'd estimate.

10 years is about what I said but the way you talk it sounds like 30 years! Of course it'll start out small and it'll take longer to reach the mainstream than DVD did purely because of the costs involved.

Of course we're a long way behind the US, we don't even have HDTV yet but I think it's more advanced over there than you think. You can buy HDTV sets for about £250. 1.4million HDTV sets were sold in the first quater in the US

[Jimmyboy]

1.4million HDTV sets were sold in the first quater in the US

...and 1.2m of them were sold to medium to large sized businesses. ;)

[Beam]

What do Brits do? They go buying stuff! :)

I can't wait for hi-def to hit, it's the next generation of home entertainment. I have experienced it first hand in the US, and it knocks what we have today into next Sunday. Blu-Ray is out and about in japan, I thought. Only the recorders are coming later. Either way, when it hits, I'll be hitting it too :)

[DeadKenny]

What!? I know it mightn't be the best TV available but you'd have to be half blind not to tell the difference between VHS and DVD on any tv set!


Well, yes I can tell the difference, but my parents don't notice. Trust me, it's not a huge difference, even with RGB input (which on their set doesn't look much different from composite!). The quality of the set is just so poor. It suffers from bad colour bleed, regardless of the settings, which makes DVD look like VHS:gag:. On my 32" Sony WEGA widescreen the difference is staggeringly obvious however :D.


10 years is about what I said but the way you talk it sounds like 30 years! Of course it'll start out small and it'll take longer to reach the mainstream than DVD did purely because of the costs involved.


10 years yes, but we've got people talking about 2 years here which is what I find unbelievable.

[camaj]

10 years yes, but we've got people talking about 2 years here which is what I find unbelievable.

I don't recall anyone saying it'll be mainstream in 2 years. I mentioned 2 years, but only for it to start to take off

I can't believe your parents TV is bad enough for a DVD to look like VHS. If it makes DVD look like VHS then it must make VHS look far worse.

Blu-Ray is out and about in japan, I thought. Only the recorders are coming later

Not so. Contary to tradition they've released the recorder first, I think mainly because of the absense of HD recorders. I think the model(s) in Japan include a satellite tuner. What the current model(s) don't do however is play back ROM disc (ie blu-ray film discs) and are limited to single layer recording. The next gen will include both these features. The ROM discs were delayed so they could agree a copy protection format with the studios which they expect to do in the autumn

[DeadKenny]

I don't recall anyone saying it'll be mainstream in 2 years. I mentioned 2 years, but only for it to start to take off


|
|
v

Sure it may take a couple of years to establish when it arrives, but that really is no time at all.

HDTV will be pushed quite heavily when it arrives, it won't be as slow an uptake as previous technology. Sure the old fogies won't care, but the market for that age group was never there in the first place.


The inference here by saying 2 years is no time at all, is that it will take off in 2 years (this was in response to my suggesting it won't take off that quickly). There's no evidence in the US market that it would only take 2 years to take off.


P.S. Just to pick up on the "old fogies" point. It's important to remember they do represent 50% of the UK spending power;)

[Grandmaster]

HiDef needs a unique selling point. The last major shift in technology was the arrival of Sky. Sky bought all the new TV shows, movie rights and all the major sporting events. It made the package irresistable.

HiDef needs a similar USP. What is it? I don't know.

The real problem here is that with all innovations in TV and movie playback technology over the last few years, you could see all the benefits on your standard TV. It's a tall order to ask people to replace both the receiver box *and* the TV at the same time.

The other problem with HiDef is that I would say that the majority of people are happy with their 28" or 32" screens. Many don't see the need for an enormous plasma screen.

What Sky needs to do is get HiDef technology into the home surreptiously. Make the next box run the HiDef channels scaled down to normal TV resolution in addition to the high resolution outputs. It'll still be miles better than normal Sky quality (no visible compression) and it will make the upgrade path to a HiDef set that much more attainable.

[zantarous]

What Sky needs to do is get HiDef technology into the home surreptiously. Make the next box run the HiDef channels scaled down to normal TV resolution in addition to the high resolution outputs. It'll still be miles better than normal Sky quality (no visible compression) and it will make the upgrade path to a HiDef set that much more attainable.

If SKY have any brains what so ever this is what the will do, although SKY will do what is best for them and not their customer base.

Sport will be a killer application on HD, do not under estimate, as it is sports especially football just does not look that great on digital.

[DeadKenny]

as it is sports especially football just does not look that great on digital.

100Hz TVs are the main cause of this though.

[zantarous]

100Hz TVs are the main cause of this though.


That’s why I have one that turn the 100hz off, but its a 36" TV so really pushing what our current PAL can do. Although I appreciate not everyone has a display this big. Normal shows do look really good however some channels that scrim on their bit rate can really make a show look horrid.

This is a bizarre thread, it has got more replies after two years then when it was originally posted.

[camaj]

The inference here by saying 2 years is no time at all, is that it will take off in 2 years

A couple of years isn't neccessarily 2 years but he said it'd take that to be established but not become main stream. It can become established in that time but it'll take much longer to become mainstream

HiDef needs a similar USP. What is it? I don't know.

You mean aside from picture quality so good if feels like you're there?

It's a tall order to ask people to replace both the receiver box *and* the TV at the same time.

That's what I said :doh: That's why I'm predicting a much longer time for it to become mainstream. No need to replace your STB though unless sky force you to buy the HD STB

Sky needs to make the next box run the HiDef channels scaled down to normal TV resolution in addition to the high resolution outputs.

I believe that's what happens with the american STB's. You can watch the output on any TV but of course it won't look anything like as good on a SDTV. If they did what you said then they'd be doing HD for free since the viewer could just plug it straight into a HDTV. Unless you mean people without HDTV should subscribe to the HD service and see how good it looks on their old TV. There wouldn't be much point really even though a lot of their stuff looks nasty because they compress it so much

Many don't see the need for an enormous plasma screen.

But that doesn't matter since you don't need an enormous plasma screen. You could get a fairly good size TFT or plasma screen instead. People might decide they'd rather have their TV on the wall and get a flatscreen when they move to HDTV

This is a bizarre thread, it has got more replies after two years then when it was originally posted

It was the newest HDTV thread I could find when I searched. I'm surprised no one started one in that time, this is the biggest thing to happen to TV in decades

[zantarous]

I believe that's what happens with the american STB's. You can watch the output on any TV but of course it won't look anything like as good on a SDTV. If they did what you said then they'd be doing HD for free since the viewer could just plug it straight into a HDTV. Unless you mean people without HDTV should subscribe to the HD service and see how good it looks on their old TV. There wouldn't be much point really even though a lot of their stuff looks nasty because they compress it so much


But can't you have one STB that does both HD and SD so you can subscribe to the HD service at a latter date should you wish (or more likely once you have bought a HD compatible display). This has to be cheaper for SKY as they can buy one box in bulk which can only help drive down the price. Although a SKY+ version would be nice I can see something like that costing £500 plus due to the large hard drive required.

[BlueDwarf]

100Hz TVs are the main cause of this though.

I have a 100hz tv, and find the problem with football is the compression.
There are times when it looks like they are playing on a pitch made of lego.

[camaj]

But can't you have one STB that does both HD and SD.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. I don't know if it'd work out cheaper though. Certainly they wouldn't do it with all customers, just new ones and for every customer that sticks with SD they'd have wasted a box. I think the only way to do it, if they did, would be to continue giving SD boxes to new customers and only HD boxes to HD subscribers. They could redistribute the SD boxes from customers who've upgraded to new SD customers. Once the demand has reached a certain level it might be wise for them to give everyone but I don't imagine the saving per box would be huge

[DeadKenny]

I have a 100hz tv, and find the problem with football is the compression.
There are times when it looks like they are playing on a pitch made of lego.

I had a 50Hz set before my 100Hz and Football on Sky looked fine before. Now it looks blocky. Though my 100Hz set also has a 50Hz mode as well as modes designed for sports :D

It depends on the channel though as some channels do compress far more than others.

[Accident Man]

:doh: Ignore me.

[camaj]

A study by the Yankee Group has concluded that high-definition television is finally beginning to catch on and that by 2008, 60 million homes will be able to receive HDTV. The study observed that sales of HDTV sets rose 66 percent in 2003 over the previous year and that 78 percent of consumers now are aware of HDTV and 20 percent say they intend to purchase a set.

[thescrounger]

I had a 50Hz set before my 100Hz and Football on Sky looked fine before. Now it looks blocky. Though my 100Hz set also has a 50Hz mode as well as modes designed for sports :D

It depends on the channel though as some channels do compress far more than others.

It's also due to the fact that 100Hz is degrading the image because it has to generate extra frames in real time, which it often can't do well enough, especially with fast motion on the screen. The answer, if flicker doesn't bother you then use 50hz. Like we all did over the last 40 years and never complained about flicker anyway. :D

[DeadKenny]

It's also due to the fact that 100Hz is degrading the image because it has to generate extra frames in real time, which it often can't do well enough, especially with fast motion on the screen. The answer, if flicker doesn't bother you then use 50hz. Like we all did over the last 40 years and never complained about flicker anyway. :D

Plus the 100Hz sets digitally process the analogue image (even in 50Hz mode unfortunately :(). In my case it's an image that's been converted from digital to analogue (by the Sky box), then to digital (by Tivo), then to analogue, and then digitised again by the TV and back to analogue to display on the CRT! :nuts:

50Hz flicker is more annoying now because I've got used to nice static 100Hz, but mainly because I've now got a 32" widescreen set :D

Still, 100Hz I find on my Sony and using the DRC mode, is excellent for good quality sources like DVDs. It's bad for NTSC though (visible scan-lines), and for some live TV, especially sports.

The DRC modes on my set are semi-High Def as they use double the lines (one supposedly progressive from what I've read), but unfortunately the set will only take low-def PAL/NTSC/RGB interlaced inputs so it doesn't really give me proper high-def or progressive scan :(.

[zantarous]

I can not stand 100Hz it just seems to introduce lots of little flickers and makes scrolling text (like on SKY Sports News) really hard to read. I can not notice 50Hz flicker and I have a 36" CRT so swings and roundabouts really so this brings us back to the original topic HDTV and why us early adaptors want/need it.

However my landlord won't give me permission to put up a sky dish so I have to wait for cable, it could be a very long wait in my case.

[camaj]

At least you could get HD-DVD or blu-ray while you're waiting

[zantarous]

Any of you guys considering Blu-ray? I will not go anywhere near that DVD has been so successful with there being only one format. If Sony wants to go it alone best of luck to them but I imagine this will be VHS v's Betamax all over again.

[DeadKenny]

I won't touch it until the format wars have ended. It's going to be a long time before we see HD DVDs in whatever format in the shops anyway, especially this side of the pond.

[camaj]

Any of you guys considering Blu-ray?

Er me. I just said so before your post. :shrug:

You could wait until there's a dominant format but that could be several years away if ever. I think Blu-ray is probably the best format and has the best chance at success and it'll be launched in the US later in the year and probably early next year in the UK.

Blu-ray is a consortium and if anything they have the largest support with comparitivly few on the HD-DVD side. I'm hoping the HD-DVD lot will come to an arrangement and join the Blu-ray group because I don't think a format war is in anyone's interest.

[zantarous]

Er me. I just said so before your post. :shrug:

Sorry mate but no where in your post did you indicate that you were interested in Blu-ray.


Blu-ray is a consortium and if anything they have the largest support with comparitivly few on the HD-DVD side. I'm hoping the HD-DVD lot will come to an arrangement and join the Blu-ray group because I don't think a format war is in anyone's interest.

Now correct me if I am wrong but the only big player out of the Movie studios in the blu-ray camp is Sony all the others are hardware manufacturers. All the other big movie studios are pushing for the HD-DVD standard, infact haven't they already decided on somesort of Windows codac?

If there are only Cloumbia Tristar films on Blu-ray I can hardly imagine movie fans (early adopters) buying this instead of a HD player that can player all the other films being released. The only kind of solution would be if there are universal players like with DVD-A and SACD. Or have I got all this wrong?

[camaj]

If there are only Cloumbia Tristar films on Blu-ray I can hardly imagine movie fans (early adopters) buying this instead of a HD player that can player all the other films being released. The only kind of solution would be if there are universal players like with DVD-A and SACD. Or have I got all this wrong?

I little, I think. I don't have a list of people in the blu-ray group but I don't think there is any studio in the group. The only Hardware manufacturer that owns a studio is Sony and they're also trying to buy MGM (though MGM don't have the largest catalogue exactly)

There's no reason to believe that ONLY columbia's films will be on blu-ray, there's nothing stopping other studios from doing so although Warner Bros is in the HD-DVD group

A universal player might be good but I don't think it's a long term solution. I believe sony are behing SACD so maybe they could be willing to get behind DVD-A if the others get behind Blu-ray.

BTW, I thought I'd said that I was interested in Blu-ray earlier and was reminding you in the post I refered to. I actually did so on a different forum :cuckoo:

[camaj]

Interestinly, someone on Digitalspy's forums claims to have seen a RP-HDTV in comet hooked up to a PC running a HDTV demo. It was a Sagem Axium which can handle a 720p input

Edit: looks like Kungfuman has also seen it HERE (http://www.thedvdforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=304815)

[BlueDwarf]

Nice, but have Sky announced what version of HDTV they will be using? With Euro 1080, and Sky (hopefully) being 1080, buying a 720 set seems to be a waste of time. Unless that's absolute rubbish of course?

I read yesterday that the Playstation3 will be using Blu-Ray, so that's a boost for it.

[zantarous]

Just had a quick look on google and it doesn’t look as though it does 1080i at all. I would imagine that Sky and the electrical manufacturers would need to work quite closely with each other to ensure that the screens are compatible. Hopefully our standard will be HDMI for connection as this is what is being phased in, in the US and would make sense for us to go straight to that.

[Snoopy]

HDTV will have a slow uptake in this country.

There are several reasons that DVD took of so quickly in this country. The first and possibly most important was cheap multi region sets early on. I remember when the a multi region Samsung came out for £150 where most R2 only players were £200+ (normaly around the £300-£400 mark). The second huge facter was the no rental window. You could now buy the film about six months after seeing in in the cinema, sometimes sooner if you went R1 route. The better picture, sound and extra features were good selling points and would always have been of interest to the niche market but my first two points brought the world of DVD to Joe Public at a very early stage.

HDTV on the other hand is going to be a lot more expensive to replace your TV. Most people won't replace unless their existing TV unless it needs replacing. Most people won't have heard of the tecnology let alone be willing to pay extra for it. Ask yourself this simple question "How many people do you know who have bought a widescreen TV and don't understand why they can still get black bars on the screen, or stretch a 4:3 signal to fill a screen to stop the black bars regardless of what the picture looks like?"

I'm sure the lot's of people would be interested in HDTV once they know what it can do and have seen the difference, but not until the price is right. (A format war won't help this though). You will also get lot's of people like my wife who would be just as happy to watch TV/DVD on a little portable with no surround sound. :cry: The only reason I'll be allowed to get a plasma/LCD TV in a few years is becuse it takes up so little space compared to the 32" CRT I've got.

[zantarous]

HDTV on the other hand is going to be a lot more expensive to replace your TV. Most people won't replace unless their existing TV unless it needs replacing. Most people won't have heard of the tecnology let alone be willing to pay extra for it. Ask yourself this simple question "How many people do you know who have bought a widescreen TV and don't understand why they can still get black bars on the screen, or stretch a 4:3 signal to fill a screen to stop the black bars regardless of what the picture looks like?

You have proved and disproved your point in the same paragraph. People are willing to buy technology that they think is better even if they do not know how to use it.

[DeadKenny]

You have proved and disproved your point in the same paragraph. People are willing to buy technology that they think is better even if they do not know how to use it.

but those widescreen TVs are £200, not £2000+

Those spending £2k are likely to know how to use it.


The key thing is that widescreen TVs are not a new technology now to consumers, they are considered a necessity by many, hence why they are now available to the masses. When HDTV practically becomes a necessity (i.e. it's almost the only thing available), and it's cheap, then HDTV will have really taken off. That's a long way off yet.

I've seen a lot of people with cheap widescreen TVs and they really haven't a clue. I've even seen people watch everything in the 'smart' (or similar) modes, even when it's an anamorphic widescreen film (their kit isn't set up to output 16:9 modes), and worse some have their set top box set to pan&scan! :eek:.

This is average Britain. They're the ones who spend £200 max on TVs and replace them every 10 years or more (depending when it breaks). These are the people who matter.

P.S. Went into Comet, Dixons, Curries etc, and unlike what some are claiming, the majority of the TVs are not plasmas and LCDs (I'd say it's about 30%). There are more now in the bigger stores than there used to be, but I have to say I didn't see anyone in there buying them. I saw people look at them and then walk away when they saw the price tag, and then they went to the cheap widescreen CRTs (plenty of people buying those, and still people even buying the 4:3 sets!).

[camaj]

those widescreen TVs are £200, not £2000+

Sure they are now! Not when they first came out. HDTV's are already in that range in the USA.

With Euro 1080, and Sky (hopefully) being 1080, buying a 720 set seems to be a waste of time. Unless that's absolute rubbish of course?

Lets forget about E1080, no one's going to watch that. Sky haven't decided what specs they're going for, but plan to do so later this year I imagine. However if they go for 1080i it won't matter, the 720p sets will downconvert the image if the STB doesn't upconvert

(A format war won't help this though).

What format war? :shrug: The only format war looming is Blu-ray V HD-DVD and won't have a bareing on HDTV. What ever format is successful both will work on normal TV's. I'd imagine most people would record the output to VHS :gag:

Btw, wouldn't it have been easier to quote someone and say "me too" than repeat what's been said?

[camaj]

Although it was heavily rumored, it's been confirmed that Sony will use Blu-ray for it's PS3 console. That has to give them a huge boost

[zantarous]

This may sound silly but didn't PS2 play a huge part in bringing DVD to the masses? PS2 was certainly my first foray in the world of DVD and I remember at the time loads of DVD’s had a sticker on them stating that they were compatible with DVD. I still know people to this day that use it as their main player. Could PS3 help HD and Sony storm in, after all blu ray discs could start flying of shelves simply because Mummy knows little Johnny has a PS3 at home. As long as Blu-ray will down convert to interlaced PAL Sony could sneak in the back door.

[camaj]

This may sound silly but didn't PS2 play a huge part in bringing DVD to the masses?

To a degree yes. There were people who didn't own a dvd player but got one when they bought the PS2. I think it's more important this time around because dvd was going to happen anyway but this swings things to blu-ray. People are going to buy a PS3 anyway and they won't neccessarily buy a Hidef dvd player because they already have a dvd player.

[DeadKenny]

Article on HDTV over at The Register, predicting 4.6 million HDTV enabled households in Europe by the end of 2008 (that's 0.63% of the population of Europe)...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/13/european_hdtv/

and BBC to produce all output in HD by 2010.

[thescrounger]

Article on HDTV over at The Register, predicting 4.6 million HDTV enabled households in Europe by the end of 2008 (that's 0.63% of the population of Europe)...
.

That's just a prediction though. I remember when experts were saying DVD would never catch on.

[camaj]

Apparently Blu-ray will now support WM9 as well as MPEG2 and MPEG4, great news I think. HD-DVD already included WM9 in their specs

[DeadKenny]

Hmm, Microsoft video "standard" in a DVD standard :suspect: (if you can call anything by Microsoft a standard. They're only such by force of majority use rather than anything agreed upon).

I wonder how the linux community will handle that one ;)

I'm surprised the big names will put up with that really.

[camaj]

I'm surprised the big names will put up with that really.

Put up with what? What big names?

It is a standard and if it increases the amount of video that can be stored on one disc then it's a great thing

[DeadKenny]

Sony, Phillips, etc.

The thing is MPEG standards are independent. WM9 is a competitors product, plus it's closed source and supports DRM:razz:

Cramming more on the disc isn't a great thing. Quality is important, not quantity, especially with High Def. I thought the point of Blue Ray, HD-DVD, etc was so that there's space to put high def stuff on there without using the ultra-compression technology such as MPEG-4/DivX and WM9, that way they'd avoid the innevitable complaints about artefacts (as we currently get when they try to cram too much on existing discs using low bitrates).

[cjb110]

jesus, you really get worked up about MS don't you??

Firstly which ever format they pick will have to support DRM, MS (and anyone else) would have to include it in any media format they wanted to sell to the media groups. Annoying and daft it maybe but were too late to stop it now.

Secondly they aint just cramming more on the disc, MS's format has been picked because they thought it had the best quality/size ratio. It's also demostateably scaleable...it doesn't take a whole lot of effort to turn a hidef stream into one suitable for a pda device. Besides quality isn't MS's choice its the disk distributors.

Thirdly, now although I can't remember if they have to open it up (i seem to remember they did), but they do have to make fully documented and available...so being closed source is neither a good or a bad thing.

The only thing wrong with picking MS is if they picked it because of a payout or some other non technical reason, and so far the information we have is that MS had a format they put forward and they sold it better than the others.

If anythings wrong with the next generation of dvd format is the fact there are two sodding formats of disk (why wont they ever learn) not the method used on one of them!

[Sammy709Sony930]

The JVC CRT 36 incher mentioned recently here plays 1080i HD. (so sayeth the manual)

[DeadKenny]

Yep, this confirms WM9 is being targetted at consumer electronics as it's being aimed at embedded linux (i.e. likely to be used in gadgets including future DVD players)...

http://www.asiaosc.org/article_34.html


Apple aren't too happy about it though...

http://www.macnn.com/news/21168&startNumber=10


From what I've read quality wise, WM9 has a lot of clever tricks up it's sleeve to make it look good (removing noticeable "blockieness", etc), but at the possible cost of detail. MPEG-2 is still a viable format for High Def, it's just that it takes a much larger bitrate (around 20Mbps!). However, when we're talking Blue Ray with 50Gb of space, it makes more sense to go with MPEG-2 with far less compression than WM9 if you want quality (and I'd have thought High Def fans would want quality over quantity).


Maybe we'll eventually see "Superbit" HD discs which use MPEG-2 at HD bitrates instead of WM9, though obviously they can't DRM protect them ;)


The real reason why WM9 is attractive to manufacturers however is because MS have pitched it's licence costs much lower than MPEG4 (which has already got some companies complaining of unfair pricing strategies, not that there's probably anything legally wrong with that).

[cjb110]

MS have pitched it's licence costs much lower than MPEG4
yea, they've decided brand and penetration are more important than profit...benefits not being reliant on the product to survive i suppose.

That apple quote is a bit more like 'were ****** because we didn't win' though!

You have to give ms some credit though...they were fast with the hidef support...those trailers have been around for almost the entire year now.

[zantarous]

Just seen this on Digital Spy (http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds15637.html)

So progress is being made but the news is not all good. Looks as though the EU standard, while it has made provisions for 1080p, seems to be pushing 720p as the main HD standard.

[CLH]

Typical. I agree with DeadKenny on this. Quality is all important. I don't want LOTR 9 discs on 1 disc. I want the best possible picture quality that I can have.

Until they offer me something that's light years ahead of DVD then I won't be amongst the early adopters.

[camaj]

CLH, it isn't about having all 9 LOTR discs on 1 disc (they can do that now anyway) but it's about getting the same quality in less space. Why put a film on 2 discs when you can put it on 1 disc with a different codec but no drop in quality? However I'm sure they will still do that because a lot of 2 disc sets could be put on 1 disc in order to seem more impressive to the consumer.

Zan, fairly interesting, good to see 1080p is recommended for the future but I can't believe the average person won't be able to tell the difference between it and 720p when people can tell the difference between that and 1080i. I'd be happy with 720p in the short term though.

I didn't mention it but last monday the guy in charge at Sky Sports was saying they'd be ready for HD next summer so whenever Sky are ready to launch they'll be ready too. I wonder if they'll broadcast HD pictures overseas and maybe downcovert them until the Sky HD launch

[Spinning Plates]

How realistic is this expectation...

watching the final series of The Sopranos (1080i) on a modded Xbox 2?

[thescrounger]

News. Pace launches Europes first HDTV PVR Hard Drive recorder. Uses Mpeg 2 and 4:

http://www.homecinemachoice.com/cgi-bin/shownews.php?id=6867

[noxid]

In USA a month back and watched a back projection lcd (plasma ?) 42 inch Hi Def and the picture was superb as close as 3 feet, much better than any plasma seen here. This was not showing off air transmission but some sort of Hi Def box, supposedly not just as good as off air.

[camaj]

News. Pace launches Europes first HDTV PVR Hard Drive recorder. Uses Mpeg 2 and 4:

http://www.homecinemachoice.com/cgi-bin/shownews.php?id=6867

AKA Sky+ HD

[thescrounger]

AKA Sky+ HD

SKY+ can't record HD broadcasts. :?: :thinking:


Did you read the link?

[BlueDwarf]

SKY+ can't record HD broadcasts. :?: :thinking:

No, but when Sky launch their HD service, they'll need this/similar kit though.
Which (I presume) is what camaj meant.

[thescrounger]

No, but when Sky launch their HD service, they'll need this/similar kit though.
Which (I presume) is what camaj meant.


Of course it will, in 2006. But this Pace model is out now. That's why I posted the link. It's all happening.

[camaj]

Of course it will, in 2006. But this Pace model is out now. That's why I posted the link. It's all happening.

It says late 2005 in the article. I wouldn't be surprised if they used it for sky+ HD.

I know Sky+ can't record HD (not can STB's decode them) this will though which is why I mentioned it in reference to your link :thinking:

[DeadKenny]

The article just refers to a technology preview basically they're using to show off to broadcasters, not a consumer product (yet). It's up to satellite and cable companies to commission OEM versions of the boxes from that technology when the box is fully launched in 2005. By 2006, if Sky have got HD up and running they might have choosen what Pace are doing here, or they may pick something else.

It's not basically an off the shelf box you can just plug in and record HD, at least not from Sky or NTL/Telewest. You'll need a satellite decoder specific to the satellite company (e.g. Sky), and most likely an integrated box so thus you'd have to wait for a box like Sky+ HD which has all the extra Sky+ features added into it.

Though I'd forget about cable companies in the UK. They'll still be stuck in the dark ages 5 years on ;)


You still of course need an HD display to play back any recordings ;)

[brock_landers]

Though I'd forget about cable companies in the UK. They'll still be stuck in the dark ages 5 years on ;)Why is that, would you say there is a lack of bandwidth?

[DeadKenny]

Why is that, would you say there is a lack of bandwidth?

No, just a lack of vision, money and infrastructure.

Take NTL for example. They took something like 3 years to get digital TV started after Sky had launched theirs after breaking promises year after year (anyone remember NTL's classic "comming soon"? ;)), and even today there are NTL franchise areas that still can't get digital TV because the cable infrastructure is so old (most of the UK cable networks were only really designed for analogue TV and they're being used for interactive digital TV and cable broadband which is seriously overloading the system).

The bandwidth is there for channels though, especially when they dump the analogue channels and if they use ultra-high (and lossy) compression like MPEG-4, but the technology required in the cable infrastructure is lagging and lacks investment.

What cable really needs is fibre-to-the-home. Current cable technology in the UK is mostly hybrid fibre/coax where it's mainly old rotting coax cables up to the houses with significant signal noise problems.

Then there's the investment in HD content. NTL and others struggle to carry the same content as Sky as it costs them so much and they are not in the same league. NTL would also have to provide their own HD 'box office' movie channels.

NTL's attitude is distinctly backwards too (this may not apply to other cable companies, I don't know). They seem reluctant to even bother with new technologies and far more interested in signing up as many customers as possible even if their systems can't cope.

[DeadKenny]

HD article from the BBC...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3652402.stm

[zantarous]

From the article above, this sounds promising

The HDTV market is associated with expensive flat-panel televisions. But HD signals can also be received for about one-third of the price on HD-capable cathode ray tube sets, which are forecast to form the bulk of sales in Europe.

But this looks as though someone just plucked a figure out of the air

But it warns that take-up rates will be slow initially because of the high cost of HDTV sets (currently just under $5,000) and the current limited availability of high-definition content.

[camaj]

From the article above, this sounds promising

Surely you knew that alredy? You can get sub £300 HDTV's in the US already. I'm not saying they're anything more than the HD equivelant of the Bush or Goodmans chepies you see in the bargin forum but it's still pretty cheap as an entry price

I'm surprised no one's mentioned this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/3655096.stm

Sony have effectively bought MGM and it'll give blu-ray a big boost.

[camaj]

Sony have officially announced that they'll use Blu-ray for the PS3. I'd actually thought they'd done that already but it seems there was nothing concrete until now. Also they've managed to produce an 8 layer disc that can hold 200Gb

[zantarous]

Some of the guys at the HTF were invited to Sony HQ for a demonstration of Blueray and had some interesting things to say http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=212575

[BlueDwarf]

Thanks for the link, interesting read.

From that link:

Personally, I think the difference between Blu-Ray
and DVD are more dramatic than what we saw going
from VHS to DVD.

blimey.

[zantarous]

Yep that is the same quote that got me all excited as well. I might actually be in favour of bluray over HD-DVD now.

[Dan]

DVD Forum finalises HD DVD-RW disc spec

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09/30/dvd_forum_logos_and_specs/

[thescrounger]

Regardless of which recordable media takes the front, be it Bluray or whatever, I'm just looking forward to seeing tha increased resolution HD will provide at larger screen sizes. That's all I'm concerned about.

[camaj]

Thanks for the link, interesting read.

From that link:Personally, I think the difference between Blu-Ray
and DVD are more dramatic than what we saw going
from VHS to DVD.

blimey.


I hate to say it but, "well, duh!"

I don't know if the statement is entirely accurate but it would be a very big jump. It may be that VHS looks pretty bad because we're used to broadcast TV quality so DVD looks a lot better.

However HD is something entirely different, something we've never seen before so they may be saying the leap is more dramatic for that reason. I don't think the leap is as big but it is a big leap

The fact that HD video quality is a big leap isn't news though, it's something we've said time and again on this thread. It doesn't matter that it's on Blu-ray either, the picture quality should be very similar on both formats although Blu-ray's larger capacity could yeild higher bitrates.

I think Blu-ray is better because the increase in capacity and speed have already been announced as have plans for BR-Rom drives. Faster, bigger disks are always needed. HD-DVD haven't done this yet

I think BR will suceed because it'll launch first, is already backed by Columbia (and MGM) and will be in the PS3 so will have a wide user base.

[BlueDwarf]

I hate to say it but, "well, duh!"
...
I don't know if the statement is entirely accurate...
...
I don't think the leap is as big but it is a big leap..


:thinking:

[camaj]

:thinking:

I'd love to make myself clearer but I don't know what you find confusing. :shrug:

To say there's a big difference is nothing new. Of course there's a big difference! However I wouldn't expect the difference to be quite as big as the one between VHS and DVD, but it IS a big difference.

[DeadKenny]

I think BR will suceed because it'll launch first, is already backed by Columbia (and MGM) and will be in the PS3 so will have a wide user base.


i.e. basically backed by Sony (Columbia/Tristar = Sony, MGM = Sony, PS3 = Sony)

Remember... Betamax was backed by Sony, and that failed! ;)


Talking of which, an interesting article on why VHS was better than Betamax as an overall product...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/comment/story/0,12449,881780,00.html


Personally I think Blue Ray can fail for something so simple as the name. Most people will think "what's Blue Ray?", where as "HD-DVD" would be obvious to most people. I know technically Blue Ray may be better, but it's simple things that drive consumer demand (e.g. one of the things people liked about VHS was the longer recording times under 'LP', even though it was a terrible picture quality. They didn't care, and I suspect a lot of people won't care about upgrading to HDTV even if you shove it under their nose and show how good it is).

[camaj]

i.e. basically backed by Sony (Columbia/Tristar = Sony, MGM = Sony, PS3 = Sony)

Yes of course but it makes sense to talk about them seperatly because they're all seperate elements. We know all the films that Columbia made and all the ones MGM made

You're right, some people won't care about HDTV, they're the sort of people who think newer and better aren't positive qualities. But so what? Let them stick with there 4:3 21" TV they bought in 1991. The rest of us who are bowled over by DVD and HDTV will be interested.

Yesterday it was announced that Fox had joined the Blu-ray forum but according to thedigitalbits.com they've only done so in an advisary capacity. I take that to mean they want a say in the development but aren't neccessarily going to release any Blu-ray films. Although I can't see them not doing so.

[zantarous]

You're right, some people won't care about HDTV, they're the sort of people who think newer and better aren't positive qualities. But so what? Let them stick with there 4:3 21" TV they bought in 1991. The rest of us who are bowled over by DVD and HDTV will be interested.


Too bloody right I couldn't give a toss if no one else wants it as long as I can pick up a HD Set and player I'll import the films if I have to I already do that with DVD.

[BlueDwarf]

I'd love to make myself clearer but I don't know what you find confusing. :shrug:

To say there's a big difference is nothing new. Of course there's a big difference! However I wouldn't expect the difference to be quite as big as the one between VHS and DVD, but it IS a big difference.

I was surprised to read that the difference is (or is perceived to be) more dramatic than that of VHS to DVD. You said "well duh!", then went on to say you didn't think it was as big a difference from vhs to dvd, so I couldn't understand the "well duh!" comment.

[jayok]

Does this mean that DVDs which people think have exceptional picture quality do not have exceptional picture quality when compared to HD? What screen size limit is the step up to a new higher exceptional picture quality? 28"? 32"? 42"? 50"+?

New technology is not bad but the drive to replace a previous format (which was/is considered to be excellent quality) is bad when it is not really needed. You can complain all you like about the masses holding back development of these formats but if enough people do not take it up, it will prove to be very expensive for the folk who want it.

At what stage does the law of diminishing return apply?

[CLH]

Personally I think Blue Ray can fail for something so simple as the name. Most people will think "what's Blue Ray?", where as "HD-DVD" would be obvious to most people. I know technically Blue Ray may be better, but it's simple things that drive consumer demand (e.g. one of the things people liked about VHS was the longer recording times under 'LP', even though it was a terrible picture quality. They didn't care, and I suspect a lot of people won't care about upgrading to HDTV even if you shove it under their nose and show how good it is).

I agree completely. Something as simple as the name can make such a difference.

[camaj]

Does this mean that DVDs which people think have exceptional picture quality do not have exceptional picture quality when compared to HD?

Spot on! That's really the point though. If it didn't have exceptional quality compared to HD then there'd be no point in doing it. How much better would you say a photograph is compared to DVD video? How about the real world itself? If that's a 10/10 then HD is probably an 8, DVD 6 and VHS 4.

What screen size limit is the step up to a new higher exceptional picture quality?

Not sure what you mean. There isn't really a limit. It'll always look better than DVD at the same screen size. So if you played both on a 21" the HD would look much better as it would if you played them both on a 50". The difference is that DVD would start looking ropey sooner than HD as you moved up in size.

[jayok]

I really mean the difference in picture quality between DVD and HD on the same TV size. If I was looking at a DVD on my 28" CRT, would I notice a difference when I switch to HD-DVD for viewing on that same 28"? or would they look similar. At what size would the difference be noticable? 42"? If there is no real difference until you hit 42"+ screens, this new technology will only really be appreciated at high sized TVs/screens. So not only will people have to buy new hardware and possibly new media, they w