Is HiDef really an upgrade?

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by EVman, Oct 22, 2007.

  1. EVman

    EVman Guest

    I am old enough to remember the VHS/BETA wars and have no intention of
    being cannon fodder in another fight like that. So I will wait for the
    unconditional surrender of either side before upgrading to HiDef.

    However, I was over at a friend's video room watching a movie on his
    cutting edge HiDef gear and I have to agree that it was really spectacular
    when first examined. But... After a few minutes the wow factor was gone
    and I was just watching a movie and the experience was just as pleasant as
    if it had been on my not-quite-so-new but still very good
    satellite/dvd/lcdTv setup. In fact, I have found that the average person
    cannot tell the difference between Dvd and HD-DVD quality unless both sets
    are sitting side by side. I can, but I know what to look for, but even
    for me, once in the easy chair with the Dr. Pepper and popcorn, it all
    fades into the movie experience.

    So I hate to risk my new-tech-at-any-costs reputation, but I am not sure
    that a whole lot of money for a small increase in clarity is a good
    financial choice at the moment.

    EVMan
     
    EVman, Oct 22, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. EVman

    Guest

    YMMV, but I can't be happier for having jumped into HD.

    I agree with you on the format war angle, though. There's
    no reason we consumers should have to deal with that crap.

    --

    Aaron J. Bossig

    http://www.GodsLabRat.com
     
    , Oct 22, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. EVman wrote:

    > I am old enough to remember the VHS/BETA wars and have no intention of
    > being cannon fodder in another fight like that. So I will wait for the
    > unconditional surrender of either side before upgrading to HiDef.


    Unfortunately, you've not going to GET "unconditional surrender" with
    Microsoft/HD-DVD, so the best you can hope for is getting as close to
    invading the Berlin Bunker as possible and seeing what happens.

    > However, I was over at a friend's video room watching a movie on his
    > cutting edge HiDef gear and I have to agree that it was really spectacular
    > when first examined.


    ....Yyyyep. :)

    > But... After a few minutes the wow factor was gone
    > and I was just watching a movie and the experience was just as pleasant as
    > if it had been on my not-quite-so-new but still very good
    > satellite/dvd/lcdTv setup.


    So, then it just became another excuse for getting a digital LCD to keep
    up with the FCC'09 digital-broadcast requirements.
    Eh, two birds with one stone, fine with that.

    > In fact, I have found that the average person
    > cannot tell the difference between Dvd and HD-DVD quality unless both sets
    > are sitting side by side. I can, but I know what to look for, but even
    > for me, once in the easy chair with the Dr. Pepper and popcorn, it all
    > fades into the movie experience.


    Having just set up my first Blu-ray/PS3/LCD setup this weekend, let me
    introduce myself as a REAL "Average person", who gets mythologized about.
    And after downloading a few 1080 trailers....ohhh, yah. There's a
    difference. ^_^

    So far, I've saved my Netflix rentals for movies I missed in theaters,
    and if the whole tech upgrade was just to keep up with a changing disk
    industry...eh, whatever. Fine with that, too. :)

    Derek Janssen (it stopped being about The New Neat Stuff months ago, and
    now it's just about Keeping Up)
     
    Derek Janssen, Oct 22, 2007
    #3
  4. EVman

    Kimba W Lion Guest

    EVman <> wrote:

    >So I hate to risk my new-tech-at-any-costs reputation, but I am not sure
    >that a whole lot of money for a small increase in clarity is a good
    >financial choice at the moment.


    How's this to save your reputation: Neither HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are "new
    tech", they're just tweaks to existing tech.

    That's how I see them, anyway, and neither is worth the expense to me.
     
    Kimba W Lion, Oct 22, 2007
    #4
  5. EVman

    Doug Jacobs Guest

    EVman <> wrote:
    > I am old enough to remember the VHS/BETA wars and have no intention of
    > being cannon fodder in another fight like that. So I will wait for the
    > unconditional surrender of either side before upgrading to HiDef.


    Exactly.

    > So I hate to risk my new-tech-at-any-costs reputation, but I am not sure
    > that a whole lot of money for a small increase in clarity is a good
    > financial choice at the moment.


    A lot of people - including home theater-types and tech journalists - have
    pointed out the same problem. The jump from VHS to DVD was quite
    startling - even when using your old TV. However, the jump from normal
    DVD on a standard definition TV (SDTV) to a HD-DVD/Blu-Ray on a HDTV isn't
    quite as prounounced. Worse still, even taking your existing DVD player
    and plugging it into a HDTV will result in your existing DVDs receiving
    quite a boost from the TV's built-in upscaler.

    Yes, there is a difference between an upscaled picture and a native 1080p
    picture, but for most, just the difference between DVD on SDTV and
    upscaled DVD on a HDTV will be more than sufficient - and won't require
    you to buy an expensive new player or new discs (which are all more
    expensive than normal DVD right now.)

    Throw in the format war, and it really seems to me that HD-DVD and Blu-Ray
    are looking to become this generation's LD at best, and SACD/DVD-Audio at
    worst. LD never caught on with most consumers, but was popular with the
    high-end home theater crowd. SACD/DVD-A were two formats trying to vie to
    become the next generation of audio CD. Featuring 5.1 surround sound,
    neither format managed to generate much in terms of sales due to their
    pricey media, and a format war that, once again, split the high-end, early
    adopter market with a bevy of confusing and incompatible equipment.

    The best thing that HD-DVD and Blu-Ray can hope for is the introduction of
    dual-format players. This way, no one loses the format war, but then
    again, no one really wins either. At least consumers won't have to choose
    which movies they DON'T want to watch. Unfortunately this means that the
    home video market will now look like the DVD burnable market - 2 diffrent,
    and incompatible formats, that do the exact same thing, yet we need to
    support both of them. For ever.

    --
    It's not broken. It's...advanced.
     
    Doug Jacobs, Oct 22, 2007
    #5
  6. EVman

    Luke Hooft Guest

    EVman wrote:
    > I am old enough to remember the VHS/BETA wars and have no intention of
    > being cannon fodder in another fight like that. So I will wait for the
    > unconditional surrender of either side before upgrading to HiDef.
    >
    > However, I was over at a friend's video room watching a movie on his
    > cutting edge HiDef gear and I have to agree that it was really spectacular
    > when first examined. But... After a few minutes the wow factor was gone
    > and I was just watching a movie and the experience was just as pleasant as
    > if it had been on my not-quite-so-new but still very good
    > satellite/dvd/lcdTv setup. In fact, I have found that the average person
    > cannot tell the difference between Dvd and HD-DVD quality unless both sets
    > are sitting side by side. I can, but I know what to look for, but even
    > for me, once in the easy chair with the Dr. Pepper and popcorn, it all
    > fades into the movie experience.
    >
    > So I hate to risk my new-tech-at-any-costs reputation, but I am not sure
    > that a whole lot of money for a small increase in clarity is a good
    > financial choice at the moment.
    >
    > EVMan


    I think it's really just a future-proofing thing where eventually we'll
    have such big screens that SD will just not look good on it. 1080p
    projectors, for example, are getting more affordable, and that's
    definitely going to need HD to look really good.

    Put simply, 6 times the resolution (for NTSC DVDs anway) is 6 times the
    resolution. You can't say that that difference is negligable. You can
    say that not everyone has equipment that will actually give 6 times
    better picture (I certainly don't), but that'll change.

    LH
     
    Luke Hooft, Oct 22, 2007
    #6
  7. EVman

    Winfield Guest

    Derek Janssen wrote:

    [snip]

    > Having just set up my first Blu-ray/PS3/LCD setup this weekend, let me
    > introduce myself as a REAL "Average person", who gets mythologized about.
    > And after downloading a few 1080 trailers....ohhh, yah. There's a
    > difference. ^_^


    Hey! Congrats on getting your new toys, Mythological Person.

    - winf
     
    Winfield, Oct 23, 2007
    #7
  8. Winfield wrote:

    >> Having just set up my first Blu-ray/PS3/LCD setup this weekend, let me
    >> introduce myself as a REAL "Average person", who gets mythologized about.
    >> And after downloading a few 1080 trailers....ohhh, yah. There's a
    >> difference.

    >
    > Hey! Congrats on getting your new toys, Mythological Person.


    Well, point is, for all the hi-def support I've been making, kind of
    embarassing to admit, I'd never actually SEEN a 1080p Blu-ray *or*
    HD-DVD movie in my life, at least outside of the odd "Chicken Little"
    display at Best Buy.
    (AND they were all sold out of the two or three keeper titles I'd wanted
    to come home with, my first Netflix Blu-rental wasn't shipped till
    today, and I'm still waiting for the November DeepDiscount sale before
    picking up any new ones.)

    I just took it as the fact that movies-on-disk in general was already
    changing toward a new industry standard that FCC regulations on the
    digital sets was already helping to cause (ie., the new disks are
    already turning up in the ads as if it was a normal thing), and that it
    was time to start standardizing one standard for all those said "Average
    people" to jump on.
    I remember DiVX-vs.-DVD, I remember June 1999, and lemme tell ya,
    sonny-Jims, it *WASN'T* "brand competition" that drove prices down and
    the good studio titles onto disk.

    ....But anyway, now that it's in my living room with no blue-shirt clerks
    looking over my shoulder, yeah, it's pretty darn cool. ^_^

    Derek Janssen (getting hooked on PS2 Kingdom Hearts for the first time
    in eight years ain't bad either)
     
    Derek Janssen, Oct 23, 2007
    #8
  9. EVman

    Doug Jacobs Guest

    Luke Hooft <> wrote:
    > I think it's really just a future-proofing thing where eventually we'll
    > have such big screens that SD will just not look good on it. 1080p
    > projectors, for example, are getting more affordable, and that's
    > definitely going to need HD to look really good.


    At the same time, not everyone is going to be upgrading to a large
    screen. Also, the vast majority of programming is still in SD. HD
    programming is still pretty scarce, and the whole HD-DVD/Blu-Ray thing is
    just better left alone until one of them dies.

    HD may be the future, but it's not quite a necessity yet. Probably won't
    be for at least another 10 years.

    --
    It's not broken. It's...advanced.
     
    Doug Jacobs, Oct 23, 2007
    #9
  10. EVman

    Richard C. Guest

    "Doug Jacobs" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Luke Hooft <> wrote:
    >> I think it's really just a future-proofing thing where eventually we'll
    >> have such big screens that SD will just not look good on it. 1080p
    >> projectors, for example, are getting more affordable, and that's
    >> definitely going to need HD to look really good.

    >
    > At the same time, not everyone is going to be upgrading to a large
    > screen. Also, the vast majority of programming is still in SD.

    ===============================
    Not true - 90% of prime time network TV is now in HD.
    Many daytime shows are in HD ( even soaps and news).
    ===============================

    > HD programming is still pretty scarce,


    ==========================
    See above. I hae not watched any shows that were in SD in several years.
    ==========================

    > HD may be the future, but it's not quite a necessity yet. Probably won't
    > be for at least another 10 years.
    >

    ============================
    Sorry, but HD is NOW!
     
    Richard C., Oct 24, 2007
    #10
  11. Richard C. wrote:

    >>
    >> At the same time, not everyone is going to be upgrading to a large
    >> screen. Also, the vast majority of programming is still in SD.

    >
    > ===============================
    > Not true - 90% of prime time network TV is now in HD.
    > Many daytime shows are in HD ( even soaps and news).


    Practically ALL network sports have been in HD for a number of years now.
    (Football bars don't watch soaps, you know.)

    >> HD programming is still pretty scarce,


    > See above. I hae not watched any shows that were in SD in several years.


    We've got HD affiliates for all Big Seven networks in our area (assuming
    Fox, CW and PBS count), and practically the only things still showing in
    SD are reality shows, kids' cartoons and reruns. And you can have 'em.

    >> HD may be the future, but it's not quite a necessity yet. Probably won't
    >> be for at least another 10 years.

    >
    > Sorry, but HD is NOW!


    And HD is WOW! :)

    (Sorry, but you hear good advertising lead-ins like that, and...y'know...)

    Derek Janssen
     
    Derek Janssen, Oct 24, 2007
    #11
  12. Richard C. wrote:
    > "Doug Jacobs" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >> Luke Hooft <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I think it's really just a future-proofing thing where eventually we'll
    >>> have such big screens that SD will just not look good on it. 1080p
    >>> projectors, for example, are getting more affordable, and that's
    >>> definitely going to need HD to look really good.

    >>
    >>
    >> At the same time, not everyone is going to be upgrading to a large
    >> screen. Also, the vast majority of programming is still in SD.

    >
    > ===============================
    > Not true - 90% of prime time network TV is now in HD.
    > Many daytime shows are in HD ( even soaps and news).
    > Sorry, but HD is NOW!


    In fact, it's been fun watching Jacobs try and keep the
    Blu-D00d-Must-Die banner flying as Snarky Conscientious Objector, even
    as the War seems ready to resolve itself:

    Going back over the arguments, you can see his own brief history of
    Pre-War Isolationism^1 :
    "Who cares about hi-def, there aren't any screens or programming anyway..."
    "I've got the screens, got a good deal LCD for $750, they look great,
    and all our local networks broadcast!"
    "Yeah, well, what's so great about Blu-ray, they don't have a player, it
    can't do anything right now, and it's too expensive!"
    "Actually, just got a PS3 for $400, it's all loaded up with the current
    wireless system-updates, and it's even the best Sony DVD-upconvert
    player out there."
    "Hah, well, the war's going to go on for years, because the public are
    dopey non-tech idiots, and they want to play Transformers on $150 HD
    players!"
    "Actually, Paramount's been taking bad PR over customer problems on
    their Transformers disks, and there's been a number of 'defective' returns."
    "Yeah...well.......after a month or two of disks, you probably won't
    even LIKE it!" :p

    Derek Janssen (it's hard to face a changing world when peace breaks out)

    -----
    1 - I mean, not to invoke Godwin, but am I the only one who thinks "Who
    cares about that silly format war; it's only for techies, but at least
    it's getting the prices down!" keeps sounding eerily like 1938's "Who
    cares what that silly painter is doing in Europe; at least they're
    getting the factories running!"?
     
    Derek Janssen, Oct 24, 2007
    #12
  13. EVman

    Doug Jacobs Guest

    Richard C. <> wrote:

    > ===============================
    > Not true - 90% of prime time network TV is now in HD.
    > Many daytime shows are in HD ( even soaps and news).
    > ===============================


    Maybe so, but network TV makes up a small portion of what I watch on TV.

    Most cable/satellite stations are still SD.

    --
    It's not broken. It's...Advanced.
     
    Doug Jacobs, Oct 25, 2007
    #13
  14. Doug Jacobs wrote:

    > Richard C. <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>===============================
    >>Not true - 90% of prime time network TV is now in HD.
    >>Many daytime shows are in HD ( even soaps and news).
    >>===============================

    >
    > Maybe so, but network TV makes up a small portion of what I watch on TV.
    >
    > Most cable/satellite stations are still SD.


    Most cable/satellite stations have HD splinter networks.

    (Oh, what are we going to use now?:
    "Yeah, but you have to pay for them!" or "Yeah, but they don't show very
    much!...
    Or, wait, are we going to overpersonalize it again?: "Yeah, but they
    don't carry them in my neighborhood!"?)

    Derek Janssen (or how about "Yeah, but they're not very good!"?)
     
    Derek Janssen, Oct 25, 2007
    #14
  15. On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:23:59 -0000, Doug Jacobs <>
    wrote:

    >Richard C. <> wrote:
    >
    >> ===============================
    >> Not true - 90% of prime time network TV is now in HD.
    >> Many daytime shows are in HD ( even soaps and news).
    >> ===============================

    >
    >Maybe so, but network TV makes up a small portion of what I watch on TV.


    Who gives a **** what a retard like you watches?
    >
    >Most cable/satellite stations are still SD.


    You're full of shit. ALL channels are digitized now. Their content
    MAY have come from analog sources, but even that number is in decline.
    Many channels have companion feeds that are high res. Only fucktards
    like you watch the Science Channel in SD.
     
    ChairmanOfTheBored, Oct 25, 2007
    #15
  16. ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:

    > On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:23:59 -0000, Doug Jacobs <>
    > wrote:
    >>
    >>>===============================
    >>>Not true - 90% of prime time network TV is now in HD.
    >>>Many daytime shows are in HD ( even soaps and news).
    >>>===============================

    >>
    >>Maybe so, but network TV makes up a small portion of what I watch on TV.

    >
    > Who gives a **** what a retard like you watches?
    >
    >>Most cable/satellite stations are still SD.

    >
    > You're full of shit. ALL channels are digitized now. Their content
    > MAY have come from analog sources, but even that number is in decline.
    > Many channels have companion feeds that are high res. Only fucktards
    > like you watch the Science Channel in SD.


    What's even more humiliating is that Bored Johnson Is Right:
    Not only does every SD station now have a ATSC digital simulcast--and
    every local cable provider carrying them by law--but HDTV
    splinter-networks are already becoming the new breakout craze for
    cable-channel franchises.

    Can't really say for sure how many, as our area only gets the HDTV
    spinoff channels for Sci-Fi, HBO, Showtime, Starz, Cinemax, ESPN, ESPN2,
    Food, Discovery, Travel, A&E, National Geographic, Home&Garden, Cartoon
    Network, TNT, CNN, and On-Demand movies, but I'm sure there're other new
    ones out there too...

    Derek Janssen (it's fun when you can smart-slap *two* posters)
     
    Derek Janssen, Oct 25, 2007
    #16
  17. EVman

    Richard C. Guest

    "Doug Jacobs" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Richard C. <> wrote:
    >
    >> ===============================
    >> Not true - 90% of prime time network TV is now in HD.
    >> Many daytime shows are in HD ( even soaps and news).
    >> ===============================

    >
    > Maybe so, but network TV makes up a small portion of what I watch on TV.
    >
    > Most cable/satellite stations are still SD.
    >

    ============================
    Only because that is what your provider is giving you!

    MANY also have HD feeds.
     
    Richard C., Oct 25, 2007
    #17
  18. EVman

    Doug Jacobs Guest

    ChairmanOfTheBored <> wrote:

    > You're full of shit. ALL channels are digitized now. Their content
    > MAY have come from analog sources, but even that number is in decline.
    > Many channels have companion feeds that are high res. Only fucktards
    > like you watch the Science Channel in SD.


    Idiot. Being "digital" has nothing to do with HDTV.

    --
    It's not broken. It's...advanced.
     
    Doug Jacobs, Oct 25, 2007
    #18
  19. On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:50:29 -0000, Doug Jacobs
    <> wrote:

    >ChairmanOfTheBored <> wrote:
    >
    >> You're full of shit. ALL channels are digitized now. Their content
    >> MAY have come from analog sources, but even that number is in decline.
    >> Many channels have companion feeds that are high res. Only fucktards
    >> like you watch the Science Channel in SD.

    >
    >Idiot. Being "digital" has nothing to do with HDTV.


    Hell in Canada I get east and west networks, PBS, CTV, CBC, Showcase,
    National Geo, 2 Movie Channels, WGN, 2 sports networks and about a
    dozen french channels in HD, for no extra cost over the basic package,
    and then there is a PPV movies channel, and another 3 specialty
    channels for a big fat 4 bucks (HDNET, Discovery HD and A&E HD)

    About the only stuff I don't watch in HD is the travel channel, and
    I'm sure the HD version of that will show up soon.

    Only a maroon thinks that HD sources are rare.

    G
     
    grant kinsley, Oct 25, 2007
    #19
  20. EVman

    Doug Jacobs Guest

    Richard C. <> wrote:

    > MANY also have HD feeds.


    True, but it's still not the majority - and there are some rather odd
    gaps. For instance, why don't Sci-Fi and Comedy Central offer HD? Then
    there's the hilariously mis-named "Tech TV" which isn't in HD. I heard
    Cartoon Network recently started a HD feed, though Dish Network hasn't
    started offering it yet. Then again, I have to wonder...what is the
    purpose of CN in HD at all? Most of their shows are still going to be 4:3
    SD. None of the news channels offer HD, which again seems rather silly.
    CSPAN doesn't...well, who watches CSPAN anyways? ;)

    The movie channels do offer HD, but I don't subscribe to those.

    Some of the smaller local channels by me don't offer HD - like KTSF, which
    carries a lot of non-English programs, including the Chinese
    comedy/variety programs my wife likes.

    Even those channels that do have a HD feed, don't always carry the same
    programming. Food Network HD has a totally different schedule compared to
    the regular, non-HD Food Network. This is probably because not all of
    Food Network's shows (or even episodes) are HD. However it's still a bit
    annoying to get a HD feed from a network but still not be able to watch a
    particular show of theirs in HD.

    --
    It's not broken. It's...advanced.
     
    Doug Jacobs, Oct 25, 2007
    #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. HiDef.com
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    543
    Phat Bytestard
    Aug 1, 2006
  2. HiDef.com
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    2,061
    fish.
    Aug 31, 2006
  3. HiDef.com
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    551
    HiDef.com
    Aug 24, 2006
  4. HiDef.com
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    1,084
    JoeBloe
    Sep 8, 2006
  5. HiDef.com
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    655
    HiDef.com
    Oct 10, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page