«

Tarkus wrote:
> Paul Heslop wrote:
>> personally I think they'll have to nail me goolies to the discs to
>> convince me to go HD. I am sick to death of 'upgrading' every couple
>> of years
>
> My memory ain't what it used to be, but I'm pretty sure both VHS and DVD
> lasted a bit more than two years.
>
> How's that 8-track tape player working out for you? Still placing
> matchbooks under the tape to get it to align properly for you?

Except for the fact that technology is making faster strides all the time.

VHS went public circa 1977 and DVD 1997. 20 years apart. Blu Ray and
HD DVD about 2 years ago. That's a 9 year difference. It wouldn't be
all that surprising (and by published account) that a newer and higher
quality format be out in 5 years. The format war may take another year
to settle, and by then 4 years to the next great thing.

RKRM wrote:
> "really real" <> wrote in message
> news:0XNpj.44605$ow.24180@pd7urf1no...
>>> What has become clear is that Blu-ray and HD DVD are both interim
>>> solutions-if even that. They are marginally better than upscaled DVDs,
>>> but neither will stand much of a chance against fibre's ability to
>>> deliver high-definition video on demand. Meanwhile, neither comes close
>>> to giving the kind of "immersive reality" that vision engineers drool
>>> over.
>>>
>>
>> I disagree with this. I just bought a PS3 so I could play Planet Earth Blu
>> Ray. The difference between a high def dvd and a regular dvd is so
>> startling that I no longer want to buy regular dvds.
>
> I agree completely. Who are these people that can't see the difference?
>
>

THe article said "marginally" which means that there's a difference, but
not a great difference. The amount of difference may have much to do
with the size/quality/price/type of the tv itself. Plasmas may look
better with HD DVD because of color, better black levels, contrast.

Tarkus wrote:
> Kimba W Lion wrote:
>> "Rambo" <> wrote:
>>
>>> What has become clear is that Blu-ray and HD DVD are both interim
>>> solutions-if even that. They are marginally better than upscaled DVDs
>>
>> Exactly right.
>
> Exactly right about the interim part. Every format is an interim
> solution. Nothing has been nor ever will be designed to be a permanent
> format. Technology moves forward, whether you follow it or not.

It's a matter of how much people are willing to pay for the interim
format and perceived difference. Do you pay double for a format that
may only look 50% better? So far the market is voting no.

It's similar to those that buy the $500 audio cable that gives them the
1% perceived difference. You start moving towards audiophile range of
thinking as the price to performance ratio goes up. Going from VHS to
DVD is a no brainer for most people. Huge difference for about the same
cost. Going from SD to HD tv, higher costs, higher quality, starts
becoming a less no-brainer if the family can't afford the quadruple
price tag.

Computers are similar. I was one that bought the next gen pc from a 286
up to Pentium for a decade as performance increased dramatically while
the price point remained the same. But I was single and had money to
burn. My present machine does most everything I need (including video
games and Photoshop) and I'll hold onto it probably 4-5 years instead
of 1 to 2 years. If DVD's make most people happy then why will they
bother investing in a new interim technology that costs the same as two
DVD's? I think people will go for having more movies, not less.
Especially as the economy dwindles into recession.

Chris F wrote:

> >personally I think they'll have to nail me goolies to the discs to
> >convince me to go HD. I am sick to death of 'upgrading' every couple
> >of years
>
> aye, i can imagine..
>
> first it was your hips...
>
> then a pacemaker...
>
> what's next?

I have to get me steam radio seen to. :O))

--
Paul (We won't die of devotion)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

Tarkus wrote:
>
> Paul Heslop wrote:
> > personally I think they'll have to nail me goolies to the discs to
> > convince me to go HD. I am sick to death of 'upgrading' every couple
> > of years
>
> My memory ain't what it used to be, but I'm pretty sure both VHS and DVD
> lasted a bit more than two years.
>
> How's that 8-track tape player working out for you? Still placing
> matchbooks under the tape to get it to align properly for you?

No, but I do like my technology to last a while. Seems sometimes now
they just update stuff so that you have to out and buy lots of stuff
which will only work with the new one.

I am not interested in hi-def for its own sake.

--
Paul (We won't die of devotion)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

Piggybacking.

>>> news:623551f6-971f-435f-acf6-...>
>>> On Feb 4, 4:18 pm, really real <reallyr...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> I disagree with this. I just bought a PS3 so I could play
>>> >> Planet Earth
>>> >> Blu Ray. The difference between a high def dvd and a
>>> >> regular dvd is so
>>> >> startling that I no longer want to buy regular dvds.
>>>
>>> > I considered that, but the regular DVD has all the bonus
>>> > features. It
>>> > seems silly to pay more and get less.
>>>

Yep, for all the touted capacity of these formats they seem
unable to handle what a DVD could? The HD-DVD version of PE was
only about 22 GB per disc.

Same reason I've held off on getting "March of the Penguins" in
HD, as the DVD bonus material turned out to be way more
interesting than the theater released movie. I'm sure,
however, that the studios know their audience. Fools rush in
.....

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 05:50:06 -0800, Tarkus
<> wrote:

>Paul Heslop wrote:
>> personally I think they'll have to nail me goolies to the discs to
>> convince me to go HD. I am sick to death of 'upgrading' every couple
>> of years
>
>My memory ain't what it used to be, but I'm pretty sure both VHS and DVD
>lasted a bit more than two years.
>
VHS and DVD didn't require a new TV to get the benefit from them
though, HD formats do.

"RKRM" <> wrote in message
news:_. ..
>
> "really real" <> wrote in message
> news:0XNpj.44605$ow.24180@pd7urf1no...
>>
>>>
>>> What has become clear is that Blu-ray and HD DVD are both interim
>>> solutions-if even that. They are marginally better than upscaled DVDs,
>>> but neither will stand much of a chance against fibre's ability to
>>> deliver high-definition video on demand. Meanwhile, neither comes close
>>> to giving the kind of "immersive reality" that vision engineers drool
>>> over.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I disagree with this. I just bought a PS3 so I could play Planet Earth
>> Blu Ray. The difference between a high def dvd and a regular dvd is so
>> startling that I no longer want to buy regular dvds.
>
> I agree completely. Who are these people that can't see the difference?

Haters, fanboys and people that need the least little thing to bitch about /
fear change.

<> wrote in message
news:10571f93-ecf1-4832-8b6d-...
On Feb 4, 4:18 pm, really real <reallyr...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> > What has become clear is that Blu-ray and HD DVD are both interim
> > solutions-if even that. They are marginally better than upscaled DVDs,
> > but
> > neither will stand much of a chance against fibre's ability to deliver
> > high-definition video on demand. Meanwhile, neither comes close to
> > giving
> > the kind of "immersive reality" that vision engineers drool over.
>
> I disagree with this. I just bought a PS3 so I could play Planet Earth
> Blu Ray. The difference between a high def dvd and a regular dvd is so
> startling that I no longer want to buy regular dvds.

> You can buy an upscaled DVD for under $100 and the difference for most
> people won't be noticable.

Keep telling yourself that. My 92 year old grand ma can tell the difference.

Chris F wrote:
>
> On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 05:50:06 -0800, Tarkus
> <> wrote:
>
> >Paul Heslop wrote:
> >> personally I think they'll have to nail me goolies to the discs to
> >> convince me to go HD. I am sick to death of 'upgrading' every couple
> >> of years
> >
> >My memory ain't what it used to be, but I'm pretty sure both VHS and DVD
> >lasted a bit more than two years.
> >
> VHS and DVD didn't require a new TV to get the benefit from them
> though, HD formats do.

which is my main reason for being against it. It's just all the extra
stuff that follows on. Mind you, present govt will probably just ban
CRT tv to force through sales of flat panels :O)

--
Paul (We won't die of devotion)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/