HD-DVD?, BLU RAY? - It doesn't matter now!! - Dual player on the way

[barthez]

http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=17880


good news really as it may allow both formats to flourish. I was going to buy a hd-dvd player (uk nov release) but i think i'll wait now and purchase a PS3 to play my blu ray and get a dual player in 2007 which by that time i hope to have a good selection of Blu Ray material which i can add HD-DVD releases to.

I've never been Pro Blu Ray or HD-DVD; Just wanted a format to win really, this takes out all the "which format should i adopt?" questions that i keep asking myself.

[Spectre07]

That's ensured the format war gets dragged out longer.

[barthez]

That's ensured the format war gets dragged out longer.

Don't agree
Why can we not have 2 formats?
Playstation, Xbox, Nintendo - Yes i know its different but one gaming powerhouse doesn't dominate. Maybe thats the way the movie industry is going?

[Spectre07]

Don't agree
Why can we not have 2 formats?Because joe public doesn't play his films on a pc drive. Because joe public will not know that you need a BR player if you want to play BR discs and a HDDVD player if you want to play a HD disc and even if he does he won't be buying 2 players.

[thescrounger]

dual format players will drag things out. I don't want to be buying both formats anyway.

[barthez]

even if he does he won't be buying 2 players.

yes but thats my point, its joe public that this dual player is aimed at. We all know the in and outs, pros and cons of hd-dvd and blu ray. I admit selling high def dvd to the masses will be very difficult. I still personally think the HD-DVD (Paying attention to the dvd bit in that) is a huge head start for that format, just beacuse of the name. I mean Blu Ray to 99.99% of the public is still alien, i wonder how many people know what UMD is?

[Spectre07]

I admit selling high def dvd to the masses will be very difficult.and this (http://www.thedvdforums.com/jump2.php?url=http://playcom.at/thedvdforums?DURL=http://www.play.com/Electronics/Electronics/4-/1135114/Product.html?source=2006090609&P36=4579LU) kind of thing isn't going to help.

[kiran_mk2]

Hooray another $ to £ conversion!

[Grandmaster]

Sorry, but :lol:... £999 for the Samsung player!?

[Grandmaster]

To get back to the original topic, this burner looks great - but it will only read HD-DVD, not write it.

However, the fact that one of the major partners of Blu-Ray is acknowledging HD-DVD in any way is surely VERY significant? I believe it's only a matter of time before there are dual HD-DVD/Blu-Ray burners.

[S1515]

Dual player rumour denied. (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=719573)

[R-T-C]

Do people think that a dual player would be an advantage or should we just wait until one side drops out?

We currently have competing formats in the DVD-/+R business, but since most players are now dual format capable it means that most folk don't mind which they are playing. I think that a dual-format player would avoid the format war coming to a crashing end with one side admitting defeat and thus leaving all those who have brought into it with all but useless discs and players.

Case study: A sort of dual-format exists in the console games market. Imagine if someone released a gaming console that played both Playstation and X-box discs (and for the sake of argument, let you use either type of controller); for the same price you suddenly get twice as many games and provided it is the same price as one of the existing consoles then there is no reason why you wouldn't want to get one.

[thescrounger]

It depends, if dual format becomes a standard in all hardware then it's ok.

[Spectre07]

Also Xbox, PS and Nintendo have their own rabid fan base. For many people choosing a console is a style choice. It's not just about the convenience of having one console and being able to play all games.

[Tempest]

Indeed, and WHY have we still got DVD-R and DVD+R

Wasn't +R supposed to replace -R

I know +R is more "Technically" advanced, better error correction etc I seem to recall, and all you end up with are endless "should I buy -R or +R questions"

[Grandmaster]

They became interchangeable. Both disks could work on both sets of players. This will not happen with HD-DVD and Blu-Ray - certainly not for a long, long while.

[R-T-C]

Also Xbox, PS and Nintendo have their own rabid fan base. For many people choosing a console is a style choice. It's not just about the convenience of having one console and being able to play all games.

I know that, hence my point about the controllers, but I don't think that there is much fan base for the DVD formats, especially not among the general public at this early stage. By introducing a dual-format player early on, it would avoid the 'format war' which I think would scare away some potential buyers.

[R-T-C]

They became interchangeable. Both disks could work on both sets of players. This will not happen with HD-DVD and Blu-Ray - certainly not for a long, long while.

Why not? Certainly if the cost of a dual-player is not substantially more than a regular player I think it would be a lot more desirable (I think a lot of people are waiting either for one format to win, at least to see which format gets the better films).

[Tempest]

Can you imagine the total mess this is going to be in shops.

Hello, I'd like to buy Terminator 3 for my BluRay player.
Sorry sir, that's only on HD-DVD Format.

Next Customer.

Hello, I'd like buy Monsters inc on HD-DVD.
Sorry sir, that's only out on BluRay.

What a bloody mess!

(I just picked those titles out the air as examples)

Serve them right if we all boycotted them until they sort this out.
Having to buy 2 players just to make sure you can watch all the movies.

[nwgarratt]

I am only interested in a dual format player or one comes the winner. I can't see why they cannot co-exist. Then, the films will just come out on the format they chose and just have one player that does the lot. Then, I will know I will be able to play any HD format disc.

Also, if Blu Ray fails, will Sony then start making HD-DVD discs and players. There is a lot of Sony/Columbia Tristar films and they will have to be released on something.

[Grandmaster]

Why not? Certainly if the cost of a dual-player is not substantially more than a regular player I think it would be a lot more desirable (I think a lot of people are waiting either for one format to win, at least to see which format gets the better films).

Whilst Blu-Ray and HD-DVD use the same compression schemes (good), the underlying programming languages used to drive the things are completely different. So whoever took on this task would essentially have to create their own chipsets from the ground up that would run both Blu-Ray's BD-J and Microsoft's iHD.

[KRW]

For some reason, not logic based, I am reminded of the 'future proof' laserdisc/DVD combo-players that enjoyed a brief period in the limelight.

[bollecks]

Whilst Blu-Ray and HD-DVD use the same compression schemes (good), the underlying programming languages used to drive the things are completely different. So whoever took on this task would essentially have to create their own chipsets from the ground up that would run both Blu-Ray's BD-J and Microsoft's iHD.

All the second generation control and decoding chips are already compatible with both formats (nobody could be bothered to fab two seperate chips, it's cheaper to cover both with one design)

All drives will be dual format becasue the extra cost will be tiny and once somebody brings one out everyone will have to copy.

Combine it with the fact that the reigon coding for both formats is an add on to the main copy protection and I wouldn't mind betting that multi reigon or switchable players that play both formats will be in stores at £250 by 2008.

[Tempest]

All the second generation control and decoding chips are already compatible with both formats (nobody could be bothered to fab two seperate chips, it's cheaper to cover both with one design)

All drives will be dual format becasue the extra cost will be tiny and once somebody brings one out everyone will have to copy.

Combine it with the fact that the reigon coding for both formats is an add on to the main copy protection and I wouldn't mind betting that multi reigon or switchable players that play both formats will be in stores at £250 by 2008.

It does beg the question......
If you can buy a player that does 2 formats, and you just buy a movie which will come on whichever format the company wants to use, but they both offer the same quality, then.........

What's the whole point of 2 formats?

If you have 2 formats of anything, and 1 is better than the other (and perhaps more expensive to reflect that) or has other advantages, pro's/cons, then there would be a reason.

LCD / PLASMA TV.

LCD/DLP Projectors.

Petrol/Diesel cars.

But if they're the same, then why bother?

[thescrounger]

Because it's competing technology to win. To make money.

[Tempest]

Because it's competing technology to win. To make money.

Errrrrr........

Well, I could see that if there were 2 completly seperate players (no combi players) and movies came out on both formats.

Then you would have a VHS / Betamax bit of competition.

There would be 2 sides trying to get your money, competing for your custom.

But if there is 1 player that plays both formats, and the same film does not come out on both formats, then there is no competition, and all seems a bit pointless :thinking:

[drush9999]

I would consider getting a combi player and getting into HD sooner. But because certain films are exclusive to one format or the other, it's the only viable option for me. Hopefully the war will be won by the end of next year anyway.

[thescrounger]

Errrrrr........

Well, I could see that if there were 2 completly seperate players (no combi players) and movies came out on both formats.

Then you would have a VHS / Betamax bit of competition.

There would be 2 sides trying to get your money, competing for your custom.

But if there is 1 player that plays both formats, and the same film does not come out on both formats, then there is no competition, and all seems a bit pointless :thinking:


Sorry but I really don't understand what your point is. HD-DVD and BD are competing formats, they will still be competeing formats even if you owned a dual machine.

[bollecks]

Sorry but I really don't understand what your point is. HD-DVD and BD are competing formats, they will still be competeing formats even if you owned a dual machine.

But if EVERYONE owned a dual format machine (as I strongly suspect they will) the formats would effectively vanish in the eyes of the average consumer and studios can release in one format or the other without any consequences.

[Spectre07]

But if EVERYONE owned a dual format machine (as I strongly suspect they will) the formats would effectively vanish in the eyes of the average consumer and studios can release in one format or the other without any consequences.There aren't any dual format machines, I doubt the two parties licensing the competing formats would allow manufacturers to build dual format machines.

[Boink!]

I would expect Sony to do its damnest to stop something like that coming out.

[nwgarratt]

I think they will lose a lot of potential customers if a dual format didn't come out eventually. I won't be getting one until then or the one format starts doing disc in the other format when one gets killed off.

There is already a HD DVD/Blu Ray drive for the PC coming out.

[Grandmaster]

The HD-DVD/Blu-Ray drive story has suddenly been refuted, with very strong indications that the Blu-Ray consortium wasn't happy about it one bit.

[Chief Brody]

"For some reason, not logic based, I am reminded of the 'future proof' laserdisc/DVD combo-players that enjoyed a brief period in the limelight."

I think that was a completely different situation to be fair. As soon as DVD appeared Laserdisc was dead in the water, combi players were just a way for exisitng Laserdisc punters to enter the DVD marketplace whilst still being able to play their Lasers, a way to soften the blow if you will. Laser had already been around for a decade and had never broken out of it's niche among home theater-philes (up until DVD laserdisc was the only way to get DD5.1 soundtracks for example), DVD was always designed to be mainstream with a much better quality at a much lower price point. HD-DVD and BR have entered the fray more or less simultaneously and at a similair price point.

[ghost.ottercrab]

I'm a fan of movies not formats, and as much as I want to see films in high-definition, the idea of having to buy to seperate players just to allow me to watch all the films that are available just seems ridiculous. If I adopt just one format, then half the movies I'd want to buy would be unavailable to me because of different studios backing different formats. I agree that a dual-format player (should a thing ever surface) would be a more attractive proposition, but I'd much prefer all movies to come out on either one dominant format, or both formats to let us choose. There doesn't seem to be any drastic advantage that Blu-Ray and HD-DVD have over each other, I can't help but feel that in the race to see who wins, it's Joe Public that loses out.

[Swafe]

Surely if you want a dual player, itll cost more than just a single standalone format player?

So basically a blue ray player, that can read HD DVD too - now who in the right mind is going to pay more than what a blue ray player costs right now (999.99 :lol:)

Also, what about these triple disks, that have blue ray, hd dvd and dvd versions on, will the player think its ' the daddy' and can handle all 3, but end up having a hissy fit and blowing up as it cant decide which layer of the disk to read? :p

[ghost.ottercrab]

Surely if you want a dual player, itll cost more than just a single standalone format player?

Well, hopefully it would be cheaper than buying TWO standalone players, one for each format.

[Spectre07]

If they can't get the single format players to work properly at the moment what hope have they got of getting a dual format player working properly? They shouldn't try to run before they canwalk, they should concentrate on getting the bugs out of the players already launched.

[Swafe]

Well, hopefully it would be cheaper than buying TWO standalone players, one for each format.

Aye, it will be cheaper than buying 2 players to make sense in buying it, apart from convienience, however the coin flips too ways, if a dual player was cheaper than just a blue ray player, then why buy a blue ray player at all when you can have HDDVD as well - for the same price. This means that if one comes out now, itll be over 999.99 of a blue ray player, yet less than 999.99 + 499.99 of a HDDVD player, for it to make sense, how you can justify spending probably 1200-1300 quid on a DVD player is beyond me, even if it is 'amazing' and more futureproof to a degree

[ghost.ottercrab]

Aye, it will be cheaper than buying 2 players to make sense in buying it, apart from convienience, however the coin flips too ways, if a dual player was cheaper than just a blue ray player, then why buy a blue ray player at all when you can have HDDVD as well - for the same price. This means that if one comes out now, itll be over 999.99 of a blue ray player, yet less than 999.99 + 499.99 of a HDDVD player, for it to make sense, how you can justify spending probably 1200-1300 quid on a DVD player is beyond me, even if it is 'amazing' and more futureproof to a degree

So what is your suggestion to film fans who want to buy movies in high definition? Plump for one format and hope the majority of their favourite films come out on that? I won't be buying either for that reason alone.

And regarding your comments on the cost, all new technology comes down in price. My first DVD player cost me £450 and that wasn't even the most expensive one on the market. You can now buy superior players to my original model for under £60. If I do eventually move to either format, it will be when prices have dropped. Significantly.

[Swafe]

My suggestion is to bloody wait :lol:

Theres no way a player is deservant of a 1200 quid price tag, no matter how much 'better' it is than a bog standard 20 quid dvd player with its new fangled dual capabilities - personally I wont be buying either, not for a very long time, admittedly the prices will drop, and probably pretty fast, buying one now tho, and especially a dual one which will just extend the format war and cost you maybe 200 quid extra, which you would be able to get a player for in a year or two if you wait, instead of a premium now, i doubt these dual players will sell many, just like blue ray and hddvd for a long time until people can actually afford them :lol:

[Spectre07]

You've also got to take into account an almost decade of deflation that we've had since DVD was launched. So, when inflation was higher your pound didn't buy as much as your pound can today. So it goes; spending £400 on a player today is probably equivalent to spending £475 in 1997, which at the time bought you a very basic DVD player. Paying £1200 for a player today is more like spending £1600 in 1997. These aren't based on actual % for inflation but I'm just using them to illustrate the point.

[Swafe]

If you reverse the inflation, would you have paid 900 in 1996 quid for a dual + and - layer format as well as standard dvds, ensuring you could play every type of dvd, or just plumped for the 400 jobby that just played standard dvds?

[Andrew70]

Handy little page here (http://www.safalra.com/other/cumulative-uk-inflation/), although admittedly it only goes up to 2003.

[Spectre07]

If you reverse the inflation, would you have paid 900 in 1996 quid for a dual + and - layer format as well as standard dvds, ensuring you could play every type of dvd, or just plumped for the 400 jobby that just played standard dvds?I'm a hi-fi anorak so prefer seperate components. I don't like integrated hardware because you get a 'jack of all trades and master of none'. So I'd go for a stand alone player every time.

[Spectre07]

Handy little page here (http://www.safalra.com/other/cumulative-uk-inflation/), although admittedly it only goes up to 2003.That's interesting, so it started in 2001, so £1200 today is the same as £1200 in 2001. But in 1997 it the opposite to what I thought, £400 spent today is equivalent to spending £480 in 1997.

[JamesK]

That's interesting, so it started in 2001, so £1200 today is the same as £1200 in 2001. But in 1997 it the opposite to what I thought, £400 spent today is equivalent to spending £480 in 1997.

No.

£600 spent today is equivalent of £500 spent then.

[Spectre07]

No.

£600 spent today is equivalent of £500 spent then.Of course it is. So I was right all along. :)

[pompeyfan]

I'm probably more representative of 'joe public' than I am the average poster on here as I just like films for the entertainment value and DVD's for the picture/sound quality and better value TV sets (even though I don't have surround sound) over vhs eg. no crackling sound, lines on the picture, tv boxsets cheaper etc and am not particularly interested in the technology, bit rates, the art of film making etc - if it looks and sounds good and is entertaining I'm happy and things like pitch correction, pull down and PQ differences between PAL and NTSC just aren't noticable to me and I can't tell the difference as they both look and sound good.

So tbh HD holds very little incentive for me atm to get really interested in it enough to be prepared to spend money on it (even though I have a HD ready LCD set - mainly as it saved space over a CRT version - I couldn't fit anything bigger than a 28" CRT in the space I have, but can a 32" LCD)) - the only thing I'm looking forward to with HD is the chance to get the LOTR trilogy with each film complete and not split over 2 sides (but I'd be quite happy for that to happen with a lower PQ on SD discs as they look good to me anyway), but even that wouldn't persuade me to buy into HD untill all the films/TV shows I'd want to see are released on an affordable HD DVD player - be that HD-DVD, Blu-ray or a combi one I don't care as long as it's (and the discs I'd want) readily available and sub-£100 maybe stretch to sub-£200 but I certainly wouldn't pay more than that for one, and just as certainly I wouldn't buy something if there's a chance I could then be told a film/tv series I want to see isn't being released on that format as exclusive to the other - and I'm sure a lot of average punters will feel the same.

[kiran_mk2]

I wouldn't worry, by the time the peices get down to these levels the war will have been decided - be it a clean win or dual players.

I have to say though that once you see HD played back on an HD screen it's very hard to look at anything else - our Tescos has a load of HD screens hooked up to the internal advert feed and one hooked up to a PC showing HD footage. The difference in quality is stunning and even people who don't usually notice PQ like my mother have commented how good it looks.

[Spooksta]

From a Joe Public point of view..
Loads of people have been buying HD Tvs this year.
Loads of people will be buying HD-DVD to go with them next year.

Ive not seen any Blu-Ray Tvs in the shops yet?

:thumbs:

[Spectre07]

Loads of people will be buying HD-DVD to go with them next year.
Not if loads of them bought DVD players last year they won't be.

[SimonI]

The difference in quality is stunning and even people who don't usually notice PQ like my mother have commented how good it looks. That's what I've seen and I think that will be the key.

I'm actually quite surprised by how luke warm the reception to HD disks has been on these forums; personally I can't wait! My dream: A Canterbury Tale and My Neighbour Totoro in HD :thumbs:

[Spectre07]

That's what I've seen and I think that will be the key.

I'm actually quite surprised by how luke warm the reception to HD disks has been on these forums;Noticing the improvemnet in PQ and being wowed by it are two completely different things. From what I've seen, I don't think the improvement is enough to justify rushing out to get a HD TV and player. I was in Curry's and they have a demonstration now showing the difference between SD and HD on a split screen. If what they are showing as SD is supposed to be DVD quality then they're perpetrating a fraud because my DVD's don't look as bad as the SD images they're using in their demonstration. Things like that just reinforce my view that HD isn't that big a deal.

[xraystan]

It's all to do with the setup, isn't it. In my local argos they have a big display of lcd tv's which were apparently all HD and showing an HD feed. They looked like they were showing a VHS quality film. It was terrible. Now if you were to go into a proper shop, not your high street currys.digital, and see a proper display with a proper source then you can't fail to be blown away by HD.
The problem is that far too many people expect to get a brilliant picture on a £200 LCD TV. It ain't going to happen. You always get what you pay for. Always, with very, very little exception when it comes to AV kit.

[Spectre07]

Now if you were to go into a proper shop, not your high street currys.digital, and see a proper display with a proper source then you can't fail to be blown away by HD.I've been into a specialist AV store as well. They had two 42" Pioneer LCD's playing House of Flying Daggers one on DVD the other on HD DVD and yes HD image was better but I walked away thinking that my DVD collection was staying put for a few years yet.

[nwgarratt]

I've been into a specialist AV store as well. They had two 42" Pioneer LCD's playing House of Flying Daggers one on DVD the other on HD DVD and yes HD image was better but I walked away thinking that my DVD collection was staying put for a few years yet.

Same here. The difference wasn't worth it. Anyone who changes their entire collection to HD would be nuts. I will be using my current DVD's for a long time yet and when I can afford to upgrade my proejctor to a HD one, I will only be buying new films in HD (except for LOTR trilogy).

[xraystan]

I don't think anyone is saying upgrade their entire DVD collection to HD-DVD's. That would be nuts.

[nwgarratt]

I don't think anyone is saying upgrade their entire DVD collection to HD-DVD's. That would be nuts.

I have heard several people are doing exactly that. I have also heard people have stopped buying DVD's because of HD but won't be upgrading for years. They don't plan on watching any new DVD's until they get HD. That is also nuts.

[Spectre07]

Having seen how good DVD can look on a large HD display, bearing in mind my DVD player is better than the one used in the demo, I'm not going to bother with HD DVD or BR whatsoever.

[Spectre07]

I have heard several people are doing exactly that. I have also heard people have stopped buying DVD's because of HD but won't be upgrading for years. They don't plan on watching any new DVD's until they get HD. That is also nuts.Also if people upgrade their DVD's because a newer release has a betterr transfer or better extras, people are bound to start upgrading their DVD collections to HD discs.

[SimonI]

I don't think anyone is saying upgrade their entire DVD collection to HD-DVD's. That would be nuts. Absolutely - I just can't image - outside of a few weathly early adopters with no taste in films - why anyone would even consider that approach.

With disks even now barely more expensive than standard DVDs, the inevitable price drops that will happen with players and the general transition to HD TVs (would even Joe Public buy an SD telly nowadays?), surely the onset of HD is inevitable... barring the format war killing it, of course. Don't forget, DVD itself was the fastest taken up home entertainment format in history, showing that the general public do have a strong taste for tech :thumbs:

[Spectre07]

The transition to HD TVs is now inevitable but not because jo public has a taste for tech but because joe public can't buy a SD display even if he wanted to.

[R-T-C]

The transition to HD TVs is now inevitable but not because jo public has a taste for tech but because joe public can't buy a SD display even if he wanted to.

Thats the 10% of Joe Public who buy televisions bigger than 20" right? I haven't seen any HD 15" black boxes yet, and most people I know still use these to watch television.

Not until regular TV broadcasts are in HD will most people consider upgrading.

[thescrounger]

Don't forget, DVD itself was the fastest taken up home entertainment format in history, showing that the general public do have a strong taste for tech :thumbs:

A taste for convenience certainly. No rewinding of tape, space saving, bonus features, directors commentaries etc.

If people bought into better audio and picture quality than laserdisc would surely have taken off 10 years before it died.

[thescrounger]

Not until regular TV broadcasts are in HD will most people consider upgrading.

They might want to keep up with the Joneses, or free up some livingroom space with a nice flat panel TV (which is the main reason people are buying them).

[Spectre07]

...or free up some livingroom space with a nice flat panel TV (which is the main reason people are buying them).I know a lot of people who want to buy a flatscreen TV for precisely that reason but think spending more than £400 on a TV is nuts. My brother bought a WS TV for the first time last year, a 32" CRT and that was because it was £259. I'm the only person at work in a team of 9 that has a TV bigger than 28", Even my manager who earns close to 40 grand a year only has a 26" TV, although she's just bought a 17" LCD TV for her bedroom. Amongst the people I know
larger flat screen TV's are still very much luxury items for the indulgant likes of lottery winners.

[thescrounger]

Back in the day though you could easily spend £500 on a 32" CRT.

[AndyWilson]

My last CRT - a 32" widescreen Hitachi, cost £1000 - and that was just about the cheapest 32" around.

[nwgarratt]

Back in the day though you could easily spend £500 on a 32" CRT.

My current 28" CRT WS IDTV was £1000 when I bought it.

[Spectre07]

My 36" Panny cost me £1600 it's just had it's 10th birthday this year.

[thescrounger]

Which goes to show the price difference between CRT and LCD/Plasma isn't that different.

[Spectre07]

That's true, but I wonder if when CRT first came out whether they were equivalent to spending £24,000 which was how much plasma TV cost 8 yrs ago.

[xraystan]

That's true, but I wonder if when CRT first came out whether they were equivalent to spending £24,000 which was how much plasma TV cost 8 yrs ago.

Not sure if it equates to £24k, but when TV first appeared there were stories of just one person in the street having a tiny 5" display and everyone in the street would huddle round to watch a smudged picture of a nice lady on the BBC.

[SimonI]

When I got our current telly about ten years ago, it cost £550 (and the VCR another £350!) - that for a 28" 4:3 Mitsubishi; cheap TVs simply did not exist in the market. I'd say that would indicate how cheap current HD stuff really is, only as noted elsewhere, everything is cheaper now.

[hookbeak]

We're now seeing dozens of cheaper make lcd's flood the market - you can easily pick up a 32" lcd for less than £500 these days. As cheaper makes flood the market, the prices of the better brands will lower to stay competitive. Add to this the lack of CRT's now available in the shops and i think you will get a pretty quick uptake of lcd.

[Boink!]

An anonymous source heard from someone high-up in the company—we can't say who—that Panasonic/Matsu****a is going to produce a dual HD DVD/Blu-ray player next year.http://uk.gizmodo.com/2006/09/29/rumor_panasonic_and_sony_relea.html

[GarethH]

Sony making a HD-DVD hybrid player, yeah right...lol!

On a side note, Click on Blu-ray is now gonna be a BD-50gb disc! Also, Sony will be bundling a Blu-ray movie with their PS3.

All I need now is to find a place that'll sell me an import PS3 :P

[Boink!]

http://www.avrev.com/news/1006/18.vidabox.shtml]VidaBox Introduces First Dual HD-DVD & Blu-Ray Media Center at a mere $4400. But wait, it's merely a PC with souped up parts. Liars!

[Spectre07]

Thats the 10% of Joe Public who buy televisions bigger than 20" right? Is it really just 10% that buy bigger screens? The smallest screen size amongst all the people I know is 32".

[R-T-C]

Is it really just 10% that buy bigger screens? The smallest screen size amongst all the people I know is 32".

Just an estimate, but I don't know anyone who has a large TV - indeed many older people I know don't even have a DVD player.
Thus I doubt that these folk are going to be too excited by HD-TV.

[SimonI]

But I think a lot of other people will - look how quickly the British public took up DVD (not to mention other new technologies, like widescreen sets). I agree that if the arrival of HD ready sets hadn't coincided with the coming down in price of flat panel TVs it would be a different matter; but with the software being much the same price, and with public perception of HD being bolstered by Sky and the Beeb, once players are affordable I think they will start shifting in big numbers. The only problem is: will they be HD or BD :shrug:

[thescrounger]

I'd say 28" is probably the average screen size among the populous.

[kiran_mk2]

I wouldn't be surprised if the average screen size was much lower than 28". It's slowly rising as shops phase out smaller screens, but the new fashion is for 17" LCD tvs which will drive the average size down again. Remember, as little a 2 years ago Steam showed that the most popular graphics card being used for it's games was the Geforce 4MX and I think the most popular screen resolution in the world is still 800x600!

[thescrounger]

I wouldn't be surprised if the average screen size was much lower than 28".

Only if it's not a 16:9 set. The average size of a WS CRT is 28". Every Tesco and Asda probably still sell them.

[Lowen]

But I think a lot of other people will - look how quickly the British public took up DVD (not to mention other new technologies, like widescreen sets). I agree that if the arrival of HD ready sets hadn't coincided with the coming down in price of flat panel TVs it would be a different matter; but with the software being much the same price, and with public perception of HD being bolstered by Sky and the Beeb, once players are affordable I think they will start shifting in big numbers. The only problem is: will they be HD or BD :shrug:

It took a few years for them to fully adopt it and then it took a huge push by HMV/Virgin and the other entertainment retailers to devote floor space to it, something they never ever did with laserdiscs which were always seen as too specialised, with dvd finally something small had arrived, to the public, it was simply movies on cd with a great picture....and they love their Cds. This time around the public will be slow to react and the retailers won't devote as much floor space to it and that's important as it helps build the public perception that what their buying will be around for some time. Going into a store and seeing a shelf of movies does not build confidence in either format and the fact that there's two competing only compounds this fact.

TV sets are slightly different as you can still watch regular broadcasts on it, so it's no biggy, change your set now and you're sorted for the future when it comes and most have a built in digital decoder now...so another bonus, it's cheaper for bigger screens now than it ever was, but we can thank the growing chinese economy for that, never in my wildest dreams did I expect to see a 42'' LCD for under £1500, it cost me over £400 for my 17" monitor for the PC only a couple of years ago....

[Cirrus888]

... but we can thank the growing chinese economy for that, never in my wildest dreams did I expect to see a 42'' LCD for under £1500, it cost me over £400 for my 17" monitor for the PC only a couple of years ago....

They're far cheaper than that now in China try 1000 gbp.

[bradavon]

Why can we not have 2 formats?
Playstation, Xbox, Nintendo - Yes i know its different but one gaming powerhouse doesn't dominate. Maybe thats the way the movie industry is going?
DVD- and DVD+, SACD and DVD-A. It's been common practise for sometime now.

Because joe public doesn't play his films on a pc drive.
No he'll wait for a dual supporting home player.

Because joe public will not know that you need a BR player if you want to play BR discs and a HDDVD player if you want to play a HD disc and even if he does he won't be buying 2 players.
He's coped well with DVD Recorders only being able to record one format.

[bradavon]

This is great news.

All we need now is dual support players in a home player. Considering both formats aren't going anywhere this is exactly what we need to help Joe Public and personally what I've been waiting for.

I'm not at all surprised it's Pioneer leading the way. They've done exactly the same in supporting both SACD and DVD-A, still a rare feature.

There's no way HD Discs will take off as quickly as DVD did though. There is a distinct advantage to DVD over VHS but the jump from DVD to HD isn't a great. Joe public for the next 2-3 years at least simply isn't going to care.

[bradavon]

More here: http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=18864

Worryingly it supports all audio formats but not Dolby True-HD.

Hybrid Discs: http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-entertainment/hd-dvdbluray-hybrid-technology-makes-consumers-lives-easier-203744.php

I hope that doesn't take off. The discs like HD-DVD Combos are bound to be sold at a premium, which in themselves are annoying to those getting for the DVD layer and those who are getting for the HD layer.

[cjb110]

dunno if this has been mentioned but the winner will be whatever the porn industry chooses! and so far they are picking both sides. But are also turning more to downloaded content too...

[Boink!]

Already been discussed, mate. Linky (http://www.thedvdforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=440984) ;)