How long till DVD is dead?

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Rich, Oct 14, 2005.

  1. Rich

    Rich Guest

    Remember 8 track? Cassette killed it. How long did it take?
    Vinyl was killed (vinylfiles need not respond) by CD in about
    four years.
    VHS was killed by DVD in the space of 4-5 years.
    So, once Blu-HD-Ray-DVD is released, how long will
    DVD persist? My guess is (owing to the numbers of DVD
    machines, the acceptability of the format and the precarious
    nature of the blu-ray, HD-DVD war, DVD should last another
    8-10 years once the other two get released.
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Oct 14, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Rich

    campu2.net Guest

    Rich wrote:
    > Remember 8 track? Cassette killed it. How long did it take?
    > Vinyl was killed (vinylfiles need not respond) by CD in about
    > four years.
    > VHS was killed by DVD in the space of 4-5 years.
    > So, once Blu-HD-Ray-DVD is released, how long will
    > DVD persist? My guess is (owing to the numbers of DVD
    > machines, the acceptability of the format and the precarious
    > nature of the blu-ray, HD-DVD war, DVD should last another
    > 8-10 years once the other two get released.
    > -Rich


    I assume that the HD players will still play regular DVDs.
    (Just as DVD players play CDs).If this is the case,
    standard DVDs should be around for many years.

    I've replaced most of my VHS tapes with DVD. I don't plan
    on replacing my DVDs with HD. Atleast, not in the near future.

    ----------------
    Best Forums & Sites
    http://campu2.net
     
    campu2.net, Oct 14, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Rich

    Guest

    So very hard to say. If they get this silly format war out of the way,
    it could be sooner than you would think. The prices on HD sets keep
    coming down. HD OTA seems to really be taking off, from an
    availability standpoint. As more and more people buy HD sets, they're
    going to want to take advantage of them.

    Still, DVD has a lot of advantages:

    1. Extreme market penetration. The most popular, most quickly accepted
    media format of all time.
    2. Reliability. The discs will likely last decades.
    3. They look great on HDTV sets.
    4. They will most certainly be cheaper than whichever HD format wins.
    Part of DVD's quick acceptance was that the pricing was good right out
    of the box. Maybe a little higher than VHS in the beginning, but
    nowhere near the princely sums paid for Laserdiscs. I don't think the
    studios will be that smart this time. And after being an LD owner, I
    ain't anxious to pony up $40 for a movie with no extras just because
    it's in HD, and I'm certainly not willing to pony up $125 or more for a
    season set of a TV show. I ain't bought the X-Files on DVD yet because
    the pricing sucks. I have, however, bought a lot of $14 movies and $40
    TV seasons.

    -beaumon
     
    , Oct 14, 2005
    #3
  4. Rich

    Morgan Guest

    "campu2.net" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Rich wrote:
    >> Remember 8 track? Cassette killed it. How long did it take?
    >> Vinyl was killed (vinylfiles need not respond) by CD in about
    >> four years.
    >> VHS was killed by DVD in the space of 4-5 years.
    >> So, once Blu-HD-Ray-DVD is released, how long will
    >> DVD persist? My guess is (owing to the numbers of DVD
    >> machines, the acceptability of the format and the precarious
    >> nature of the blu-ray, HD-DVD war, DVD should last another
    >> 8-10 years once the other two get released.
    >> -Rich

    >
    > I assume that the HD players will still play regular DVDs.
    > (Just as DVD players play CDs).If this is the case,
    > standard DVDs should be around for many years.
    >
    > I've replaced most of my VHS tapes with DVD. I don't plan
    > on replacing my DVDs with HD. Atleast, not in the near future.
    >
    > ----------------
    > Best Forums & Sites
    > http://campu2.net
    >


    I've never been under the assumption that HD-DVD or Blu-Ray was going to
    take over for standard DVDs. I still don't think enough people have an HDTV
    to warrant either format becoming more dominant than regular DVDs. Yes,
    more people have HDTV's but they only have 1, not 1 in every room. I have a
    fairly large DVD collection (500 DVDs) and I can't see myself replacing but
    a handful of titles--only about 10 (and that's being really generous). And
    realistically, I wouldn't replace them as I'd still have the standard
    version around for portability purposes--there's not going to be an HDTV or
    HD-player everywhere I go. I think the future of DVD is pretty secure. I
    think lots of people have more DVDs than they had VHS tapes, and their
    willingness to part with them will be a much tougher fight when a new format
    hits the market. I still only see HD-formats as a niche market. And I may
    be totally wrong, but I think the general public is starting to grow weary
    of new formats. I haven't experienced an HD disc so I can't say I know what
    it's like, but I have and HDTV and (although I'm blown away by the clarity)
    I can't see myself paying more for a movie just to get it in HD.

    Morgan
     
    Morgan, Oct 14, 2005
    #4
  5. Rich

    AZ Nomad Guest

    On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:07:41 -0700, Morgan <> wrote:
    >I've never been under the assumption that HD-DVD or Blu-Ray was going to
    >take over for standard DVDs. I still don't think enough people have an HDTV
    >to warrant either format becoming more dominant than regular DVDs. Yes,
    >more people have HDTV's but they only have 1, not 1 in every room. I have a
    >fairly large DVD collection (500 DVDs) and I can't see myself replacing but


    substitute LP for DVD and CD for HD-DVD/blueray.

    However, IMNSHO HDTV is too little an improvement to dump DVDs or even
    laserdiscs. It's only twice as sharp as the old crappy NTSC and still needs
    to improve at least fivefold to even approach film quality.

    When the next technology after HDTV comes along then I'll start replacing
    my laserdiscs and DVDs.
     
    AZ Nomad, Oct 14, 2005
    #5
  6. Rich

    Justin Guest

    AZ Nomad wrote on [Fri, 14 Oct 2005 17:45:43 GMT]:
    > On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:07:41 -0700, Morgan <> wrote:
    >>I've never been under the assumption that HD-DVD or Blu-Ray was going to
    >>take over for standard DVDs. I still don't think enough people have an HDTV
    >>to warrant either format becoming more dominant than regular DVDs. Yes,
    >>more people have HDTV's but they only have 1, not 1 in every room. I have a
    >>fairly large DVD collection (500 DVDs) and I can't see myself replacing but

    >
    > substitute LP for DVD and CD for HD-DVD/blueray.


    Oh bullshit. LPs got scratches and skips and were huge and bulky. All
    these families with DVD players in their minivans aren't going to be
    switching to HD any time soon. There's still confusion about playing
    DVDs in CD players, let alone the confusion that HD discs will add to
    the mix. The general public won't upgrade unless they see a big benefit
    to it. VHS->DVD had that, LP->CD had that. DVD->HD-DVD/Blu-Ray doesn't.
     
    Justin, Oct 14, 2005
    #6
  7. AZ Nomad <> wrote:

    >substitute LP for DVD and CD for HD-DVD/blueray.


    More like DVD=CD and HD-DVD/BluRay=SACD, IMO.
     
    Kimba W. Lion, Oct 14, 2005
    #7
  8. Rich

    Jeff Rife Guest

    Morgan () wrote in alt.video.dvd:
    > And
    > realistically, I wouldn't replace them as I'd still have the standard
    > version around for portability purposes--there's not going to be an HDTV or
    > HD-player everywhere I go.


    Then, too, if you don't have at least a 17" screen, HD really won't help
    much at all.

    --
    Jeff Rife |
    | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Goals.gif
     
    Jeff Rife, Oct 14, 2005
    #8
  9. Rich

    Jeff Rife Guest

    AZ Nomad () wrote in alt.video.dvd:
    > However, IMNSHO HDTV is too little an improvement to dump DVDs or even
    > laserdiscs.


    Then, you obviously haven't seen any HDTV. I can agree that "dumping" the
    old stuff would be silly, but if the new discs and players were priced
    the even close to DVDs, it'll be a no-brainer (assuming no "Internet
    authorization" crap) to buy them for new releases. Other advantages to
    the new discs might be full bitrate DTS for most movies, since the 1.4Mbps
    of a DTS track is nothing compared to the 15-25Mbps of the movie itself.

    > It's only twice as sharp as the old crappy NTSC and still needs
    > to improve at least fivefold to even approach film quality.


    I'm not sure where you learned to do math, but "old crappy NTSC" is about
    480x360 for a 16:9 picture. DVD (which is *good* NTSC) is 720x480 (with
    discs that are "enhanced for 16:9 TVs"). Both are interlaced.

    HDTV on disc can be 1920x1080 and progressive scan. That's 12 times as
    many pixels as "old crappy NTSC" and 6 times as many as DVD, plus you get
    progressive scan.

    --
    Jeff Rife | Sam: How's life treatin' you, Norm?
    |
    | Norm: Well, Sammy, it's not...so I sure
    | hope you are.
     
    Jeff Rife, Oct 14, 2005
    #9
  10. Rich

    AZ Nomad Guest

    On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:12:26 -0400, Jeff Rife <> wrote:


    >AZ Nomad () wrote in alt.video.dvd:
    >> However, IMNSHO HDTV is too little an improvement to dump DVDs or even
    >> laserdiscs.


    >Then, you obviously haven't seen any HDTV. I can agree that "dumping" the


    Or you've never seen a movie.


    On a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being a quality film and 1 being NTSC, HDTV is
    at best a 3. HDTV is great only when compared to NTSC.
     
    AZ Nomad, Oct 14, 2005
    #10
  11. Rich

    AZ Nomad Guest

    On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:12:26 -0400, Jeff Rife <> wrote:

    >I'm not sure where you learned to do math, but "old crappy NTSC" is about
    >480x360 for a 16:9 picture. DVD (which is *good* NTSC) is 720x480 (with
    >discs that are "enhanced for 16:9 TVs"). Both are interlaced.


    >HDTV on disc can be 1920x1080 and progressive scan. That's 12 times as
    >many pixels as "old crappy NTSC" and 6 times as many as DVD, plus you get
    >progressive scan.


    That's only true if you take those pixels and stretch them along a line.
     
    AZ Nomad, Oct 14, 2005
    #11
  12. Rich

    Jeff Rife Guest

    AZ Nomad () wrote in alt.video.dvd:
    > On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:12:26 -0400, Jeff Rife <> wrote:
    >
    >
    > >AZ Nomad () wrote in alt.video.dvd:
    > >> However, IMNSHO HDTV is too little an improvement to dump DVDs or even
    > >> laserdiscs.

    >
    > >Then, you obviously haven't seen any HDTV. I can agree that "dumping" the

    >
    > Or you've never seen a movie.


    Well, of course I have. But I don't think either one of us have seen a
    movie in our house that is projected from 35mm film. So, it's a moot
    point.

    > On a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being a quality film and 1 being NTSC, HDTV is
    > at best a 3. HDTV is great only when compared to NTSC.


    Uh, huh. Right. At 1920x1080, it is not that far from the actual visible
    resolution of the film in most movie theaters, and 1920x1080 is a pipe
    dream in a lot of them. Then, too, there are movies that have only about
    2000x1300 resolution in the first place, because that's the resolution
    at which the special effects were done. For movies that get scanned in
    after the final cut for digital color correction, you end up with even
    lower resolution.

    --
    Jeff Rife |
    | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/Workaholic.gif
     
    Jeff Rife, Oct 15, 2005
    #12
  13. Rich

    Jeff Rife Guest

    AZ Nomad () wrote in alt.video.dvd:
    > >HDTV on disc can be 1920x1080 and progressive scan. That's 12 times as
    > >many pixels as "old crappy NTSC" and 6 times as many as DVD, plus you get
    > >progressive scan.

    >
    > That's only true if you take those pixels and stretch them along a line.


    I guess you don't actually understand "resolution" and how it's a 2D thing,
    and how increasing either axis increases the perceived quality.

    --
    Jeff Rife | /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
    | \ / against HTML e-mail
    | X and USENET posts
    | / \
     
    Jeff Rife, Oct 15, 2005
    #13
  14. Rich

    Biz Guest

    What have you been smoking? Thats fine if its your opinion, but your facts
    are so bad in person I'd have to call you a flat out liar, or just too
    stupid to bother with...


    "AZ Nomad" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:12:26 -0400, Jeff Rife <> wrote:
    >
    >
    > >AZ Nomad () wrote in alt.video.dvd:
    > >> However, IMNSHO HDTV is too little an improvement to dump DVDs or even
    > >> laserdiscs.

    >
    > >Then, you obviously haven't seen any HDTV. I can agree that "dumping"

    the
    >
    > Or you've never seen a movie.
    >
    >
    > On a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being a quality film and 1 being NTSC, HDTV

    is
    > at best a 3. HDTV is great only when compared to NTSC.
     
    Biz, Oct 15, 2005
    #14
  15. Rich

    Alpha Guest

    "AZ Nomad" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:12:26 -0400, Jeff Rife <> wrote:
    >
    >>I'm not sure where you learned to do math, but "old crappy NTSC" is about
    >>480x360 for a 16:9 picture. DVD (which is *good* NTSC) is 720x480 (with
    >>discs that are "enhanced for 16:9 TVs"). Both are interlaced.

    >
    >>HDTV on disc can be 1920x1080 and progressive scan. That's 12 times as
    >>many pixels as "old crappy NTSC" and 6 times as many as DVD, plus you get
    >>progressive scan.

    >
    > That's only true if you take those pixels and stretch them along a line.


    This may be the stupidest attempt at an answer ever witnessed. Stupid.
     
    Alpha, Oct 15, 2005
    #15
  16. Rich

    Black Locust Guest

    In article <>,
    wrote:

    > Still, DVD has a lot of advantages:
    >
    > 1. Extreme market penetration. The most popular, most quickly accepted
    > media format of all time.


    Very true. It would take a small miracle for either one of these HD
    discs to be accepted even half as quickly as DVD was accepted. The
    high-end users may jump on them real quickly, but even they will likely
    hold off because of the format war. And I don't see the 'Average Joe'
    consumer even considering HD discs for at least another 8 to 10 years,
    if EVER...

    > 2. Reliability. The discs will likely last decades.


    This is one of the key advantages DVD had over the then "King of Video"
    VHS format when it launched in 1997. Many people were already beginning
    to see their VHS collections start to deteriorate back then. These HD
    formats will have no such advantage over DVD. A well cared for DVD
    should be in as good condition 50 years from now as it was the day it
    was purchased.

    > 3. They look great on HDTV sets.


    Yes. Even though DVDs aren't truly "high definition", they're still
    optimized for HDTV's. Honestly, I've come across very few people that
    aren't satisfied with the picture quality of DVD on HD sets.. You have
    to be a pretty demanding bastard to look at a well mastered anamorphic
    DVD on a player with progresssive scan output and say "That looks like
    crap. I want something better!"

    > 4. They will most certainly be cheaper than whichever HD format wins.
    > Part of DVD's quick acceptance was that the pricing was good right out
    > of the box. Maybe a little higher than VHS in the beginning, but
    > nowhere near the princely sums paid for Laserdiscs.


    Actually, DVD was priced better than VHS, even in the beginning.
    Remember, the majority of VHS was priced for rental for the first 6
    months or so. DVD had the luxury of never being subjected to the dreaded
    "rental window."

    > -beaumon
    >

    --
    "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we.
    They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people,
    and neither do we." - George Dumbya Bush
     
    Black Locust, Oct 15, 2005
    #16
  17. Rich

    Allan Guest

    On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 19:18:06 -0400, Jeff Rife <> wrote:

    >AZ Nomad () wrote in alt.video.dvd:
    >> On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:12:26 -0400, Jeff Rife <> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> >AZ Nomad () wrote in alt.video.dvd:
    >> >> However, IMNSHO HDTV is too little an improvement to dump DVDs or even
    >> >> laserdiscs.

    >>
    >> >Then, you obviously haven't seen any HDTV. I can agree that "dumping" the

    >>
    >> Or you've never seen a movie.

    >
    >Well, of course I have. But I don't think either one of us have seen a
    >movie in our house that is projected from 35mm film. So, it's a moot
    >point.
    >
    >> On a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being a quality film and 1 being NTSC, HDTV is
    >> at best a 3. HDTV is great only when compared to NTSC.

    >
    >Uh, huh. Right. At 1920x1080, it is not that far from the actual visible
    >resolution of the film in most movie theaters, and 1920x1080 is a pipe
    >dream in a lot of them. Then, too, there are movies that have only about
    >2000x1300 resolution in the first place, because that's the resolution
    >at which the special effects were done. For movies that get scanned in
    >after the final cut for digital color correction, you end up with even
    >lower resolution.


    Jeff... don't even waste your time with this technical wizard...


    "That's the most idiotic statement I've read on usenet this year.

    I never would have believed that anybody could be moronic enough to
    think that video on demand could exist without a high speed internet
    connection, or that anybody would think waiting a full month for to
    download a two hour movie would be preferable to a trip to the video
    store, or the 3 day wait for netflix."

    Nuff said...







    "Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game
    because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from
    -- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time."
    - Neil Stephenson, _Cryptonomicon_
     
    Allan, Oct 15, 2005
    #17
  18. Rich

    Allan Guest

    On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 00:37:43 GMT, "Biz" <> wrote:

    >What have you been smoking? Thats fine if its your opinion, but your facts
    >are so bad in person I'd have to call you a flat out liar, or just too
    >stupid to bother with...


    "AZ Nomad" <> wrote in message

    "That's the most idiotic statement I've read on usenet this year.

    I never would have believed that anybody could be moronic enough to
    think that video on demand could exist without a high speed internet
    connection, or that anybody would think waiting a full month for to
    download a two hour movie would be preferable to a trip to the video
    store, or the 3 day wait for netflix."

    >
    >"AZ Nomad" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:12:26 -0400, Jeff Rife <> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> >AZ Nomad () wrote in alt.video.dvd:
    >> >> However, IMNSHO HDTV is too little an improvement to dump DVDs or even
    >> >> laserdiscs.

    >>
    >> >Then, you obviously haven't seen any HDTV. I can agree that "dumping"

    >the
    >>
    >> Or you've never seen a movie.
    >>
    >>
    >> On a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being a quality film and 1 being NTSC, HDTV

    >is
    >> at best a 3. HDTV is great only when compared to NTSC.

    >








    "Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game
    because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from
    -- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time."
    - Neil Stephenson, _Cryptonomicon_
     
    Allan, Oct 15, 2005
    #18
  19. Rich

    Justin Guest

    Black Locust wrote on [Fri, 14 Oct 2005 22:12:09 -0600]:
    > In article <>,
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Still, DVD has a lot of advantages:
    >>
    >> 1. Extreme market penetration. The most popular, most quickly accepted
    >> media format of all time.

    >
    > Very true. It would take a small miracle for either one of these HD
    > discs to be accepted even half as quickly as DVD was accepted. The
    > high-end users may jump on them real quickly, but even they will likely
    > hold off because of the format war. And I don't see the 'Average Joe'
    > consumer even considering HD discs for at least another 8 to 10 years,
    > if EVER...


    What might push Joe Sixpack into buying into HD would be exclusive
    content. Even then, would the studios really make exclusive content when
    penetration isn't very high?
     
    Justin, Oct 15, 2005
    #19
  20. Rich

    campu2.net Guest

    Justin wrote:
    > Black Locust wrote on [Fri, 14 Oct 2005 22:12:09 -0600]:
    > > In article <>,
    > > wrote:
    > >
    > >> Still, DVD has a lot of advantages:
    > >>
    > >> 1. Extreme market penetration. The most popular, most quickly accepted
    > >> media format of all time.

    > >
    > > Very true. It would take a small miracle for either one of these HD
    > > discs to be accepted even half as quickly as DVD was accepted. The
    > > high-end users may jump on them real quickly, but even they will likely
    > > hold off because of the format war. And I don't see the 'Average Joe'
    > > consumer even considering HD discs for at least another 8 to 10 years,
    > > if EVER...

    >
    > What might push Joe Sixpack into buying into HD would be exclusive
    > content. Even then, would the studios really make exclusive content when
    > penetration isn't very high?


    Does Joe Sixpack care about exclusive content or even know what it is?
    I rarely watch the "extras" or listen to alternative tracks.

    Aside from the format war, I don't believe HD will be mainstream until
    the average household has a HDTV set.

    I believe it will be for the high end consumers or as already mentioned
    a niche market similar to laserdiscs. Which almost guarantees $30-$40
    for HD releases (similar to the prices we saw for Laserdisc movies).

    Best Forums and Sites
    http://campu2.net
     
    campu2.net, Oct 15, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Colonel Blip

    I Better wait till version 1

    Colonel Blip, Jul 12, 2004, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    486
    Reg Mouatt
    Jul 12, 2004
  2. =?Utf-8?B?SmVuSA==?=

    290 and 291 on hold till end of April

    =?Utf-8?B?SmVuSA==?=, Apr 5, 2005, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    404
    Rowdy Yates
    Apr 6, 2005
  3. zarathustra

    Re: How long till dfn?

    zarathustra, Jun 22, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,306
    zarathustra
    Jun 22, 2003
  4. Friar Tuck

    Detagged Domains - how long till they're available?

    Friar Tuck, Jan 1, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    405
    Ed Pulliam
    Jan 2, 2004
  5. Neal

    How long till they ship full 64 bit

    Neal, Jul 21, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    361
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64]
    Jul 21, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page