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

[tomos]

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

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

[Michael Brooke]

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

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

[Confucius]

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

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

[Kryten]

this is probably better suited to the hardware forum.

Moving...

[tomos]

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

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

and play it on a normal low definition UK television?

[LV426]

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

[tomos]

wish we had high-def :(

[MartinC]

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

[andrewh]

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

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

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

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

:confused:

[tomos]

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

[MartinC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bonzo Banana]

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

[poggs]

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

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

[Feroze]

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

[Uncle Eric]

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

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

[Bonzo Banana]

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

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

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

[tomos]

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

[Ian Vinten]

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

[carryonline]

www.bluray.com

[tomos]

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

[camaj]

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

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

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

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

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

[Ridcully]

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

[CLH]

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

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

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

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

[BlueDwarf]

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

[thescrounger]

Yup, SKY is is going HD in 2006.


Besides, I thought most plasmas were HD ready??

[kiran_mk2]

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

[zantarous]

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

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

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

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

[GAmbrose]

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

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

Gary A

[thescrounger]

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

[Wayne Moule]

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

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

http://www.euro1080.tv/

[nwgarratt]

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

There is already dual layer blueray that holds 50GB.

[camaj]

There is already dual layer blueray that holds 50GB.

Well thanks for reading MY post! :brickwall


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

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

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

[MartinC]

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

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


Smartie pants... ;)

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

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

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

[corbas]

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

[cjb110]

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

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

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

[zantarous]

Smartie pants... ;)

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

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

[GAmbrose]

Well thanks for reading MY post! :brickwall




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

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

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

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

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

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

Gary A

[camaj]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[kiran_mk2]

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

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

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

[camaj]

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

[Niceguygeoff]

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

[DeadKenny]

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

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

The BBC have mentioned High Def too.

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

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

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


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


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

[camaj]

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

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

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

[Wayne Moule]

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

[thescrounger]

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

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

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

[DeadKenny]

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

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


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

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


To which the answers my parents would give...

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


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

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

[thescrounger]

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

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

[Wayne Moule]

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

[zantarous]

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

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

[AndyWilson]

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

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

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

[DeadKenny]

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

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

[James45]

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

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

[zantarous]

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

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

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

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

[thescrounger]

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

...

You show it to them.

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

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

[DeadKenny]

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

:lol::lol::lol:

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

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

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

[thescrounger]

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

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

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

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

[camaj]

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

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

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

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

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

[CLH]

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

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

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

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

[DeadKenny]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

[thescrounger]

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

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

[Wayne Moule]

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

[DeadKenny]

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

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

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

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

[zantarous]

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


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

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

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

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

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

[thescrounger]

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

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

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

[DeadKenny]

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

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

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

[CLH]

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

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

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

[thescrounger]

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

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

[DeadKenny]

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

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

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

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

[CLH]

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

[thescrounger]

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

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

[camaj]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Niceguygeoff]

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

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

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

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

[camaj]

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

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

[zantarous]

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

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

[AndyWilson]

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

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

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

[zantarous]

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

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

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

[SPB]

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

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

[Jimmyboy]

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

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

[zantarous]

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

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

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

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

[DeadKenny]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

[Jimmyboy]

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


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

[zantarous]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rant over.

[Jimmyboy]

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

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

Rant over.

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

[camaj]

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

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

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

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

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

[Jimmyboy]

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

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

[Beam]

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

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

[DeadKenny]

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


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


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


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

[camaj]

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

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

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

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

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

[DeadKenny]

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


|
|
v

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

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


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


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

[Grandmaster]

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

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

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

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

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

[zantarous]

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

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

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

[DeadKenny]

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

100Hz TVs are the main cause of this though.

[zantarous]

100Hz TVs are the main cause of this though.


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

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

[camaj]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[zantarous]

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


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

[BlueDwarf]

100Hz TVs are the main cause of this though.

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

[camaj]

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

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

[DeadKenny]

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

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

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

[Accident Man]

:doh: Ignore me.

[camaj]

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

[thescrounger]

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

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

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

[DeadKenny]

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

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

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

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

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

[zantarous]

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

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

[camaj]

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

[zantarous]

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

[DeadKenny]

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

[camaj]

Any of you guys considering Blu-ray?

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

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

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

[zantarous]

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

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


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

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

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

[camaj]

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

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

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

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

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

[camaj]

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

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

[BlueDwarf]

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

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

[zantarous]

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

[Snoopy]

HDTV will have a slow uptake in this country.

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

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

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

[zantarous]

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

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

[DeadKenny]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

[camaj]

those widescreen TVs are £200, not £2000+

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

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

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

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

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

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

[camaj]

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

[zantarous]

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

[camaj]

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

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

[DeadKenny]

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

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

and BBC to produce all output in HD by 2010.

[thescrounger]

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

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

[camaj]

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

[DeadKenny]

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

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

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

[camaj]

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

Put up with what? What big names?

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

[DeadKenny]

Sony, Phillips, etc.

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

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

[cjb110]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sammy709Sony930]

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

[DeadKenny]

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

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


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

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


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


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


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

[cjb110]

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

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

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

[zantarous]

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

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

[CLH]

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

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

[camaj]

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

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

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

[Spinning Plates]

How realistic is this expectation...

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

[thescrounger]

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

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

[noxid]

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

[camaj]

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

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

AKA Sky+ HD

[thescrounger]

AKA Sky+ HD

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


Did you read the link?

[BlueDwarf]

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

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

[thescrounger]

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


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

[camaj]

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

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

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

[DeadKenny]

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

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

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


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

[brock_landers]

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

[DeadKenny]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[DeadKenny]

HD article from the BBC...

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

[zantarous]

From the article above, this sounds promising

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

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

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

[camaj]

From the article above, this sounds promising

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

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

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

[camaj]

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

[zantarous]

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

[BlueDwarf]

Thanks for the link, interesting read.

From that link:

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

blimey.

[zantarous]

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

[Dan]

DVD Forum finalises HD DVD-RW disc spec

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

[thescrounger]

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

[camaj]

Thanks for the link, interesting read.

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

blimey.


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

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

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

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

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

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

[BlueDwarf]

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


:thinking:

[camaj]

:thinking:

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

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

[DeadKenny]

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


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

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


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

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


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

[camaj]

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

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

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

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

[zantarous]

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


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

[BlueDwarf]

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

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

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

[jayok]

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

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

At what stage does the law of diminishing return apply?

[CLH]

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

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

[camaj]

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

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

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

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

[jayok]

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

[cjb110]

If the same size screen had more pixels then yes there would be a difference.
And because the pixels would have to be smaller than they are now, you would get a different picture, probly would seem sharper, with higher detail.

However I do not know if you could get a HD screen at the 28" size, due to manufacturing reasons.

Trying changing your monitors resolution, is not exactly the same but shows some of the differences.

[Panavision]

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


Sony/MGM will probably only release their films on Blu-Ray, that's got to be significant move; alongside the PS3 and overwhelming PC Manufacturer support - Sony have already won the war in my opinion.

I think Sony were intending to rename Blu-Ray.

[camaj]

I really mean the difference in picture quality between DVD and HD on the same TV size. If I was looking at a DVD on my 28" CRT, would I notice a difference when I switch to HD-DVD for viewing on that same 28"? or would they look similar.

That's what I thought you meant. Like I said, if they looked similar there'd be little point in doing it. There should be a very noticable difference! Don't think of it as DVD vs HD but VHS vs DVD. The low resolution of VHS is apparent on a 14" TV as does the quality of DVD.

Also there'd be even less point if the differences only became apparent at larger sizes.

One way of explaining it is if you have photoshop or some software that lets you zoom in on a photo. With a low res image you'll notice the pixels at a low magnification. The higher the res the more magnification you'll need to spot the pixels.

Going up in TV size is just like magnifying the image.

[jayok]

The question that the new technology will have to answer is :

Does the increase in picture quality justify the new expenditure on all the hardware and media?

The majority of people would have the view that the picture quality of DVDs is very very good. Unless I see the results for myself, I am sceptical and I would be hard pushed to justify that expenditure. When will the law of diminishing returns kick in?

[camaj]

The question that the new technology will have to answer is :

Does the increase in picture quality justify the new expenditure on all the hardware and media?

That's true of all new technology. It's something that can only be judged by the individual. Would you say that DVD is worth it since you had to buy new hardware and software for that? Admitedly you didn't have to buy a new TV but there's nothing to stop you from watching Blu-ray/HD-DVD your existing TV and then getting a new tv at a later date or vice versa. At least we know this is coming well in advance so we can plan for it now.

[Pionir]

I'd be very surprised if HD-DVD took off in anything like the way DVD has.

I think they'll go more the way of laserdiscs. Laserdiscs (origins in the late 70s / early 80s iirc) were never widely accepted globally, and only really on a large scale in Japan, even though they offered near DVD quality. Indeed early DVDs were worse quality than laserdiscs, mainly due to poor encoding, or poor source material. See Highlander as a classic example.

Laserdiscs were highly priced (£30-£40) which meant they stayed a niche market, which meant the prices had to stay high. I don't see people jumping for HD-DVD so the same thing is going to happen.

I expect quality will be poor in alot of cases, and the stories of "it's not worth it" will be what the mass media picks up on. Anyone remember the "pentium MMXs will make all cpus obsolete!!!" scare storied in er 1997? Newsflash to the media, all CPUs make old CPUs obsolete! But I digress :)

The only hope for HD-DVD is either for the company to agree (HA!) and phase out DVDs, or for it to be a re-writable format off the shelf (HAHA!!) to fully replace VHS before everyone's got DVD recorders.

So I reckon HD-DVD will come along, there will be few bits of UK kit availabled, and it'll be well overpriced.

Something to look forward to eagerly then :)

[zantarous]

:brickwall I don't think people are reading the whole thread before posting.

HD is the future nothing can stop it from happening and becoming the dominant force, it won't happen over night but over a number of many years. DVD's are already down converted from HD masters, studios are investing in HD technology, TV shows are being filmed in it and broadcasters are showing it.

HD is not only a format for the home such as DVD or laser disc it is a technical specification which can be applied to a home format, a movie, a TV show, a TV broadcast etc.

[jayok]

So you are fully confident that the masses will throw away all their TVs, multiple DVD players and DVD discs to embrace a format that requires them to replace said equipment?

[Pionir]

:brickwall I don't think people are reading the whole thread before posting.

HD is the future nothing can stop it from happening and becoming the dominant force, it won't happen over night but over a number of many years. DVD's are already down converted from HD masters, studios are investing in HD technology, TV shows are being filmed in it and broadcasters are showing it.

HD is not only a format for the home such as DVD or laser disc it is a technical specification which can be applied to a home format, a movie, a TV show, a TV broadcast etc.

Try reading the thread title - it's about HD-DVDs specifically, not about HD in general :)

[Boink!]

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

Oh great, 7 layer changes per movie. ;)

[CLH]

So you are fully confident that the masses will throw away all their TVs, multiple DVD players and DVD discs to embrace a format that requires them to replace said equipment?

Not a chance, well certainly NOTHING like the uptake of DVD.

Joe Public started to take DVD to his heart when he could buy a DVD player in Tesco and the prices became reasonable. Joe also started buying when he saw that the volume of DVD's in HMV was actually more than VHS and he noticed that the 3 for 1 offers effectively made a lot of DVD's cheaper.

He also realised that a disc based format was very very sexy.

Try selling HD-DVD to an audience by saying:

1. The disc will look the same.
2. You'll get a better picture (when they're already amazed) if you buy a new TV
3. You'll get better sound if you buy a new audio setup (which they don't yet own anyway)
4. You'll be able to fit LOTR on on DVD (they never got round to watching it anway).

It WILL take off but I'd be suprised if it had 25% of DVD's share in 2010.

[DeadKenny]

Remember that people were told that DVD-A and SACD were supposed to replace regular audio CD because of it's much better quality audio (which is definite), but very few Joe Public punters are interested, even if you stick them in a room with an expensive hi-fi and show them the difference and they say "wow"... they just trundle back to their budget system and el-cheapo speakers and good old reliable CD.

I generally judge a products success on the basis of whether it's the kind of thing my parents would buy. CDs... yes, DVDs... yes (when the price was right). Widescreen TV is still not on their list as they want to draw the life out of their 10 year+ telly, but it'll be the replacement for their existing TV as they already see from Sky and DVDs that widescreen would be of benefit (and prices are cheap). Laserdisc was never an option, they hadn't heard of it and when they did see them eventually the disc was too much like an old 45rpm record in size (quality was of no interest to them).

I know that when my parents are up for widescreen TV and I tell them HDTV is better, they won't be interested as it will mean a lot more expense and replacing the DVD player and DVDs ultimately, plus a new Sky box and subscription to HD services.

For the mass public, quality isn't everything. Why else do you think MP3s are so popular when they are such poor quality?

Sure HD will happen, and so will HD-DVD or BlueRay (whichever wins), but it's not going to be an overnight success this side of the pond, and I wouldn't rely on importing vast quanitites of HD-DVDs. In my opinion it will be much like laserdiscs where there was a limited selection of them available (compared to DVD) and most had to be imported.

I'm not just knocking any new technology. I remember a long usenet group argument I had with someone when DVDs were just coming out and he predicted that DVDs would not succeed and laserdiscs were the future, yet I argued that DVDs would kill laserdisc dead almost overnight and it did! I could see the benefit to the mass public of DVD, whereas I can't see them going for HD... not yet.

[CLH]

Definitely agree there.

A lot of friends and family say that they'll buy a new TV "when the old one breaks."

And quality control seems to have been better 10 years ago!

[zantarous]

Definitely agree there.
And quality control seems to have been better 10 years ago!

DON'T TALK TO ME ABOUT BETTER QUALITY. Sorry for shouting I am a bit emotional at the moment as the 36" Toshiba I bought 18 months ago has stopped working so just goes to show that a set can break down at any point and if the cost of fixing it is too high then buying another is a better alternative.

The DVD-A and SACD is not really a fair comparison as it is not really a world standard that is being used in by broadcasters, movie makers, console manufactures ect. I love the way everyone is knocking and give all the reasons that it won't take of but finish their posts with:

I will take over but on yet or words to that effect.

Try reading the thread title - it's about HD-DVDs specifically, not about HD in general

So what you are saying you should ignore all the other areas that will be taking up HD and that they will play no part in the influence and penetration of HD-DVD as a home format :doh:

[jayok]

DON'T TALK TO ME ABOUT BETTER QUALITY. Sorry for shouting I am a bit emotional at the moment as the 36" Toshiba I bought 18 months ago has stopped working so just goes to show that a set can break down at any point and if the cost of fixing it is too high then buying another is a better alternative.


You are covered by current consumer law against the retailer for goods that do not last a reasonable time.

I wrote extensively about this in a previous thread about extended warranties

[Andrew70]

If they phase out ordinary dvds fairly quickly so that blu-ray discs are what people see on the shelves, it might take off quickly.
If they sell blu-ray discs alongside ordinary dvds and position them as a kind of premium dvd, they will be very slow to take off.

I suspect the latter path is most likely.

A.

[zantarous]

You are covered by current consumer law against the retailer for goods that do not last a reasonable time.

I wrote extensively about this in a previous thread about extended warranties

Can you point me in the direction of this post as I would be interested to know where I stand as the person coming out this afternoon wants a £65 call out charge.

[CLH]

DON'T TALK TO ME ABOUT BETTER QUALITY. Sorry for shouting I am a bit emotional at the moment as the 36" Toshiba I bought 18 months ago has stopped working so just goes to show that a set can break down at any point and if the cost of fixing it is too high then buying another is a better alternative.

My point was that older TV's seem to have a habit of working for many years.

Those built at the tail end of the 80's seem to be almost unkillable.

And there are a lot of those still around.

[CLH]

You are covered by current consumer law against the retailer for goods that do not last a reasonable time.

I wrote extensively about this in a previous thread about extended warranties

And a good thread it was.

The problem is that whilst the SOGA does allow claims to be brought within contract limitation (6 years) retailers will normally call your bluff and force you to issue proceedings.

[jayok]

I cannot find the thread but I have just pulled this off the Which? website.


Returning Faulty Goods
Do you know your shoppers' rights? You'd better - because you can't rely on the stores to know them
Consumer Rights

Most shops are fond of telling you that their special offers don't affect your statutory rights. Unfortunately, they're less enthusiastic about explaining what these rights entail - in fact, many couldn't even tell you what they are if you asked. We've looked at ten of the largest electrical chains and, when it comes to facing up to their responsibilities under the law, they're all terrible.

We visited 97 stores, posing as a customer with a faulty DVD player we'd bought there. The advice staff gave us veered from the (occasionally) sublime to the (mostly) ridiculous. Most gave the distinct impression that they were making it up as they went along:

* 87 per cent of stores didn't admit that they might be legally obliged to repair the DVD for free
* 46 per cent simply passed the buck to the manufacturer, even though the manufacturer, unlike the stores, had no legal obligation to help us out
* 19 per cent politely suggested that there was absolutely nothing they could do, so we should buy a brand new DVD player from them instead.

Our survey

In June, we made 97 visits to Allders, Argos, Comet, Currys, Debenhams, Dixons, John Lewis, Littlewoods-Index, Miller Brothers, and Powerhouse.

We posed as a customer whose DVD had broken down just outside the free warranty period. So, we usually said the DVD player was 18 months old. In Debenhams and John Lewis, we said it was two and a half years old, since they offer a free two-year warranty. We asked whether the shop could fix the DVD, and what our rights were.

Powerhouse has changed owners since our research.
The Legal Bit

When you buy anything from a shop, you have certain rights under the Sale of Goods Act. These are often referred to as your statutory rights. The law states that, when you buy goods, they must meet the description given, be fit for purpose, and be of satisfactory quality. In plain English, whatever you buy must do what it's supposed to, be in good condition, free of faults, safe, and must last for a reasonable length of time.

The definition of a 'reasonable time' varies from product to product, but you can make a claim on anything up to six years after you've purchased it (except in Scotland, where the limit is five years). And, crucially, if you do have a claim, the retailer - though not necessarily the manufacturer - is always liable.
How long is reasonable?

One of the ambiguities of the Sale of Goods Act is the definition of a 'reasonable' length of time. The act doesn't define how long products should last, because different products have different life spans. And even two identical products can have varying life spans, depending on how much they're used.

For a rough guide, though, we asked manufacturers for estimated product life spans on six appliances. They said that all the products should last at least five years and some, like TVs, much longer. So, if you're claiming within the six-year period legally allowed, you could well have good cause for a claim.

Product Life span
Washing machine 5 to 10 years
Tumble drier 5 to 10 years
Dishwasher 5 to 10 years
VCR 6 to 9 years
Fridge 7 to 10 years
TV 8 to 10 years
What Should Have Happened

The Sale of Goods Act isn't a panacea for any kind of breakdown. If you want to make a claim, the breakdown has to be the result of a defect that was present at the time of purchase - though you needn't have been immediately aware of it. For example, if a TV has slightly dodgy soldering when you buy it, you probably won't realise until it causes a problem later. But you should still be able to make a claim because the TV wasn't of satisfactory quality.

Because of these ambiguities, you wouldn't expect shops automatically to offer to fix any product for free. However, you might expect them to be able to tell you your rights. It's really not difficult - when we visited the shops, all they had to do was admit that they may be responsible for repairing the fault for free and either:

* ask us to let them assess the DVD player, or
* ask us to provide evidence that we didn't cause the fault. This would simply involve paying an engineer to assess the fault.

However, good advice was difficult to find. Just 12 of the 97 shops said that there might be circumstances in which they'd fix the DVD player for free. And there were no differences between the different chains we visited; each was as bad as the others.
What's Going Wrong

When staff were confronted with the faulty DVD player, most instinctively pointed to the manufacturer's warranty. Electrical goods usually come with a one-year manufacturer's warranty, which the manufacturer is legally bound to honour. But that simply lets you choose another route to getting your product repaired or replaced. During the warranty, the retailer still has the same responsibilities. And, when it expires, the shop's legal obligations remain - not that this stopped staff hiding behind the warranty like a safety blanket.

We were bemused by the service we encountered, so we contacted all the companies and asked what steps they took to train staff. The head offices were very helpful and all duly told us that they kept their staff fully informed about shoppers' rights. Curiously, that training isn't showing up on the shop floor.

One obvious way to help confused staff would be to include information on rights in the in-store bumf. At the end of each visit, we asked whether the shop had any leaflets which outlined our shoppers' rights. Some of the staff were so perplexed by the notion that they offered us leaflets about extended warranties or price promises instead. All the leaflets were at pains to state that the offers they contained wouldn't affect our statutory rights - but that would have been more reassuring if there had been someone in the shop who knew what those statutory rights were.
How To Claim Your Rights

If you think you have a claim, be persistent. Don't expect help from the shop where you bought the goods.

Contact the head office
Even at some of the stores which were helpful, we were pointed towards the head offices. So save yourself some grey hairs by contacting the head office first. Be firm, explain that you think your product hasn't lasted a reasonable amount of time, and say that you'd like it investigated and repaired or replaced if it turns out to be faulty.

The evidence
If the goods are less than six months old, it's up to the retailer to prove that the fault wasn't present at the time of purchase. For anything older, it's entitled to ask you to provide evidence of the fault. This isn't difficult - you just need to contact an independent repairer and ask it to produce a report. It shouldn't be too expensive and, if you have a successful case, you should be able to claim back up to £200 from the retailer in the small claims court.

The repair
Once you know that the problem is caused by a manufacturing fault, ask the retailer to repair or replace your appliance. If the cost of doing this is disproportionate, the retailer can offer a refund instead - though this might not be a full refund, depending on how much you've used the product. If you don't want to wait for the retailer to assess your claim, you can pay someone else to fix the item. As long as it provides evidence of a manufacturing fault, you'll be able to claim the cost of repair from the retailer.

If all else fails
If you have a claim that the retailer won't settle, you can take it to the small claims court. The judge can order the retailer to settle the claim and pay legal costs - see 'Small Claims Court, Guide' (February 2003) for more details.

Hopefully, things will never get that far. But, until the shops sort their act out, you might have to force them to respect your statutory rights - because you'll probably know more about the subject than they do.
Case Study : Dabs' Hand Forced

Justin Read paid just £30 for the evidence to make a claim against internet retailer Dabs under the Sale of Goods Act.
Dabs

When Justin's inkjet printer broke down 14 months after he'd bought it from Dabs, he'd used it so little that he still had the original ink cartridge.

He emailed to complain and Dabs wasted no time replying. Unhappily, its single-sentence reply wasn't that helpful: 'We are unable to offer a repair or replacement as this item is now out of warranty'. But the warranty is, of course, irrelevant. When you buy on the internet, your rights are just as strong as on the high street.

After a few more emails, Dabs replied that the 'burden of proof' was with Justin. So he paid a local repairer to inspect the printer. It said that there was a mechanical problem, probably caused by rough shipping.

If Dabs still refuses to repair or replace the printer, Justin's next stop will be the small claims court - where that repairer's report could come in handy.

[jayok]

And a good thread it was.

The problem is that whilst the SOGA does allow claims to be brought within contract limitation (6 years) retailers will normally call your bluff and force you to issue proceedings.

Correct, you have to be prepared to use the Small Claims Court

(Sorry for taking this off-topic)

[zantarous]

So regardless I sill have to pay to get it fixed and then go through the small calims court.

[jayok]

So regardless I sill have to pay to get it fixed and then go through the small calims court.
I would definitely contact the head office of the retailer and explain your case as stated in the Which? report. I would then get an independent view of the TV and armed with the report, I would go back to the Head Office. This is the strategy I took for my dishwasher and the retailer replaced it and refunded me the independent report. I did not have to resort to the small claims court but I was prepared to do so.

The evidence
If the goods are less than six months old, it's up to the retailer to prove that the fault wasn't present at the time of purchase. For anything older, it's entitled to ask you to provide evidence of the fault. This isn't difficult - you just need to contact an independent repairer and ask it to produce a report. It shouldn't be too expensive and, if you have a successful case, you should be able to claim back up to £200 from the retailer in the small claims court.

[Pionir]

So what you are saying you should ignore all the other areas that will be taking up HD and that they will play no part in the influence and penetration of HD-DVD as a home format

Nope, I'm saying don't lecture people for not reading the thread, when they're just responding to the topic of the thread :)

I don't see a big take up of HD anything happening soon. I think we'll be lucky to see mass take up of HD-TV by 2010 (and that's assuming broadcasters bother with it by then). Remember digital TV is 'low res' and people are slow to move over to that en masse.

You're right it'll happen one day, but that could be 20-30 years ...


You are covered by current consumer law against the retailer for goods that do not last a reasonable time.

'A reasponable time' is open to interpretation and I'd doubt if that extended to over a year. Usually it's a few weeks and covers DOA goods.

[jayok]

'A reasponable time' is open to interpretation and I'd doubt if that extended to over a year. Usually it's a few weeks and covers DOA goods.


It is open to interpretation and it does cover over a year. I have been successful in getting a 2.5 year old dishwasher replaced.

From the Which? report


For a rough guide, though, we asked manufacturers for estimated product life spans on six appliances. They said that all the products should last at least five years and some, like TVs, much longer. So, if you're claiming within the six-year period legally allowed, you could well have good cause for a claim.

Product Life span
Washing machine 5 to 10 years
Tumble drier 5 to 10 years
Dishwasher 5 to 10 years
VCR 6 to 9 years
Fridge 7 to 10 years
TV 8 to 10 years

[Pionir]

Heh, in the time it took to write my reply, CLH posted the which report :)

How does it work when shops like dixons, john lewis effectively buy out warrantees from the manufacturer and warantee the product themselves?

Also those are estimates of lifespans, but I guess there's alot of arguing over how long a product should last. If I was a manufacturer I would dispute those values in court by saying "we only warantee 1 year because we reckon it'll only last 1 year". Is there anything clear cut or is it just whoever decides to back down first?

Also what could you claim for? Is a PSU going pop and blowing a fuse that costs £25 call out to fix, but no parts, or only a critical failure which means there is no repair?

I'm a bit cynical unless there's something in black and white.

[camaj]

So you are fully confident that the masses will throw away all their TVs, multiple DVD players and DVD discs to embrace a format that requires them to replace said equipment?

I am. Not overnight, it'll take time and it'll be slower to catch on than DVD. Don't forget that they'll also be able to recieve HDTV so it's a two pronged attack effectively.

I don't think people are reading the whole thread before posting

I'm pretty sure they don't. Take a look at this
The only hope for HD-DVD is either for the company to agree (HA!) and phase out DVDs, or for it to be a re-writable format off the shelf (HAHA!!) to fully replace VHS before everyone's got DVD recorders.

Blu-ray is rewritable off the shelf. The only blu-ray players you can get are BR recorders (and only in japan). People are looking for a solution to record HDTV, up until now they'd have to use a VCR (yuk) or if they're lucky, some sort of PVR. There are a few HD capture cards but they're hardly a mass market solution like BR is.

Of course, it's also great for people who want to watch prerecorded video but if you had HDTV but could only record it on to VHS you'd probably think that was a bit dumb.

I think we're going around in circle's a bit here. How many times do people have to say "I don't think HDTV will be mass market in the near future"? We get it and it's highly likely that'd be the case, no need to write it every other page. If HD-DVD only had a 25% share in 2010 so what? It doesn't have to wipe out DVD overnight.

DeadKenny's parents are in a great position, if they're waiting for their TV to break they'll get HDTV. They don't neccessarily have to get all the associated hardware at the same time but if they decided to go with a widescreen they'd probably find that they couldn't upgrade to HDTV if they wanted to. It makes sense to future proof yourself even if you can't get the benifits just yet. Why limit yourself?

By the time they replace their set, the BBC and probably other terrestrial broadcasters would have started HDTV transmissions. They'll need a new sky box, but I'd imagine it wouldn't cost much, if anything and the sub shouldn't be that expensive. That said, for some people HDTV would be just not worth the money.

I don't think anyone with sense would have argued that LD was the future, only LD fanboys. The question was whether DVD would wipe out VHS, and it has. No one was going to pay over £1000 for a player and then £30 each for films that came on huge discs when they could get them for £15 on much smaller discs.

Quality is important and that's why DVD was successful in some respects but comparing it to DVD-A/SACD is a mistake. Those are audio formats and people find it a lot harder to tell the difference in audio quality than in video quality.

To my ears MP3 (at 128kps) sounds as good as a CD and I suspect a lot of people are the same and would find it harder to tell the difference between CD and higher res audio

It's far easier to tell the improvment in quality in HDTV over ordinary TV for the majority of people, the question is whether they care enough about the difference.

Andrew70, they won't phase out DVD, just like they didn't phase out VHS. The success of the format will determine how much shelf space it's given in stores. Like DVD it'll start of on a rack at the back of the shop, then a shelf then a whole section. Take off will be slow but it'll increase once terrestrial HDTV starts.

[Pionir]

Andrew70, they won't phase out DVD, just like they didn't phase out VHS. The success of the format will determine how much shelf space it's given in stores. Like DVD it'll start of on a rack at the back of the shop, then a shelf then a whole section. Take off will be slow but it'll increase once terrestrial HDTV starts.

Or it'll be like laserdisc - a significant improvement in quality over the alternatives but priced too highly for the mass market.

It'll start off on a rack at the back of the shop like LD, but stay there until something else comes along that captures the publics imagination.

Hence why I said:

The only hope for HD-DVD is either for the company to agree (HA!) and phase out DVDs, or for it to be a re-writable format off the shelf (HAHA!!) to fully replace VHS before everyone's got DVD recorders.

It's got to have something unique or it'll fall by the wayside. The mass public are very slow to change unless there are market drivers. With DVD it was a significant improvement in quality over the alternatives but priced competitively (unlike LD).

Give it another year and alot of people will have set top DVD recorders - they're only £200 for a cheapy one now, which is about the same as a video recorder was only 5 years ago.

Why will people throw this away to get an HD-DVD recorder to record low-res TV? Why would broadcasters invest in HD-TV when no-one has an HD-TV to play it. Why would people get an HD-TV when HD-DVD is so expensive and offers little over your DVD-recorder.

When it becomes chicken and egg, the mass market does nothing, leaving it to the minority fans to adopt (like laserdisc).

If HD-DVD only had a 25% share in 2010 so what? It doesn't have to wipe out DVD overnight.

If HD-DVD only has a 25% market share in 2010, I would say it hasn't been adopted, it's limping through like Laserdisc until something else comes along

[camaj]

Or it'll be like laserdisc - a significant improvement in quality over the alternatives but priced too highly for the mass market.

It'll [..] stay there until something else comes along that captures the publics imagination.

Why will people throw this away to get an HD-DVD recorder to record low-res TV? Why would broadcasters invest in HD-TV when no-one has an HD-TV to play it. Why would people get an HD-TV when HD-DVD is so expensive and offers little over your DVD-recorder.

If HD-DVD only has a 25% market share in 2010, I would say it hasn't been adopted, it's limping through like Laserdisc until something else comes along

First off, how about responding to points rather than just repeating yourself?

You seem to want HD to fail or something because you're ignoring the good points and inventing some bad points!

You say that "HD-DVD" is so expensive like you know what the price is going to be when clearly you don't :brickwall

No one would get a HD-DVD recorder to record SDTV but they might get one to future proof themselves.

Why would broadcasters invest in HDTV when no one has HDTV? I don't know but they have so it's a bit of a pointless question. I imagine they know that everyone will end up getting HDTV.

Your last line is just as bad. 25% would be fantastic. What's this imaginary thing that's coming after? LD never had 25%, it would have been happy with 5%. 25% is a good start and it'd be a good base to grow from.

I mentioned the reason why LD failed and why DVD suceeded earlier but you clearly ignored it. LD was far too expensive and the discs were too big. HD-DVD is going to be as near to the same price as DVD was when it launched and will be recordable from the outset. Something which you thought would be the killer app!

[ur_the_lame]

hi,

My input on technology such as blue ray is... its a dead duck..

The quoted capacities for blue ray are pitiful and not a sufficient leap to make them a dvd killer for data backup or a method of getting 4 dvd boxsets onto 1 disk with uber audio and/or HD video.

When CD was released at 650MB it was a real WoW! as most computers then had 10's of Mbs of Hard drive if they were lucky, maybe in the low hundreds so it was clearly a must have technology.

For music of course it was a massive step away from hissy tape and crackly records, again a must have..

When DVD came out it became the next big thing as it supported high quality movies which made VHS look really sick. Its per side data storage some 7 times a CD was also a worthwile improvement for data.

Blue Ray however is about 3-4 times more than a DVD per side/layer.. not exactly stunning in a time when 120 Gigabytes of hard drive costs less than £50 and a lot of people have considerably more than 120 GB (probably full of movies :n0rty: )

Its technology isn't too ground breaking.. "lets use a different wavelength so we can cram more data on the disc using the same techniques dvd/cd has used for years".. great.. another re-packaging job :doh:

the ultra small "dot pitch" means discs will be an expensive manufacturing exercise and i suspect a big issue with dirt/dust somewhat moreso than our already touchy dvds.

there are ways of increasing the density of DVD / CD media using modern modulation techniques wherby you could gain at least 8 times the capacity using the same media we have now.

To me Blue Ray is a case of Traffication* , somebody needs to stop and think about what it is they are trying to acheive instead of re-hashing existing aged technology.

now Blue ray developers, give us a disk that can hold 160 GB per side instead then that will be progress. and make it so we really can spread jam on it as tommorrows world did when CDs were announced :D

Bill


*Trafficators, those wonderful things that ended up as an orange flashing light on cars started off as a mechanical arm on the side of cars.. this was because it was designed to emulate the "arm signal" usually given by a driver of the time.

It took some years before they added a light to it and then eventually one day somebody thought.. "what are we trying to do here.. oh yes, inform other road users of an intent to change direction, not emulate a persons arm" so the arm was dropped and the light remained :clap:

Blue ray is just a brighter bulb, only not a lot brighter than DVD :brickwall

[camaj]

I'm not really sure what you're saying here. Are you making the case purely as a data storage medium rather than A/V storage?

To call it pitiful is either misguided or extremly harsh. My DVD-r holds 4.7 GB where as blu-ray will hold 50GB. Are you saying 10 times the capacity is pitiful? That's an amazing leap, even 10GB would be something!

I also don't know what you mean by rehashing? Do you think they're making a mistake by evolving the CD/DVD? What's wrong with that?

You say
When DVD came out it became the next big thing as it supported high quality movies which made VHS look really sick

Which is exactly what Blu-ray/HD-dvd will do. You can't have one rule for DVD and not for BR/HD-DVD

What's HDD capacity/price got to do with it? Do you think they're going to start selling films on HDD's?

You complain the technology isn't groundbreaking but then say they could have got 8x the capacity with "modern modulation techniques" whatever the hell that is! Frankly, who cares, as long as it delivers what it promises (and it will) who cares if it's groundbreaking technology?

[zantarous]

[quote] Blue Ray however is about 3-4 times more than a DVD per side/layer.. not exactly stunning in a time when 120 Gigabytes of hard drive costs less than £50 and a lot of people have considerably more than 120 GB (probably full of movies [quote]

Where I work we are constantly running out of disc space on our file stores due to how many different departments we have, TV and film, Videogame developers, marketing, customer and consumer services, finance, IT, design and marketing the list goes on and on. Usually we ask people to clean up their drives but these create no real space, a few times we have bought more data storage capacity but in the real world this cost lots of money and is no where cheap as you make it out to be for business. In the end we just decided to buy a DVD burner and for the cost of a few DVD's we can back up lots of data that can be deleted from the main drives, now a Blueray disc at 50GB would make very good sense for a business like us.

As for broadcasters not investing in the technology I am afraid folks you are wrong as the BBC has been investing in this over a number of years, remember they were filming in widescreen years before the first widescreen shows were broadcast. SKY will also be launching a hi-def service in 2006 and that will result in a huge investment on their part. US broadcasters have also spent lots of money over the last few years in HD, this is not some sill invention being pushed by one corporation but a global spec.

Since when was having 25% of the market a failure? In that case Microsoft and Nintendo might as well get out of the console business right now.

[ur_the_lame]

To call it pitiful is either misguided or extremly harsh. My DVD-r holds 4.7 GB where as blu-ray will hold 50GB. Are you saying 10 times the capacity is pitiful? That's an amazing leap, even 10GB would be something!

erm.. dual layer DVDs are 10GB (well just under), single layer are your 4.7GB.

a Single layer Blu Ray is claimed 25GB although this will only be for stamped DVDs i suspect, writables will more likely be nearer 20 hence my 4x claim.

dual layer Blu Rays i doubt exist and i suspect due to the data density and implementation used (from a technical perspective) will be difficult to create in volume as a read/write solution at consumer prices.

so on a realistic level dual layer will probably be 40GB as opposed to ~10 GB for DVD, same 4-1.


When DVD came out it became the next big thing as it supported high quality movies which made VHS look really sick

Which is exactly what Blu-ray/HD-dvd will do. You can't have one rule for DVD and not for BR/HD-DVD

Well the difference betwen VHS and DVD or for that matter laserdisc is significant. Laserdisc was doomed due to size and cost imo , DVD on the other hand looked exactly like a CD and therefore was instantly acceptable to a world already used to the CD. Its initial high cost slowed its progress though.

a couple of points..

99% of people are pefectly happy to sit and watch a TV set with at best 400 lines of visible resolution.

DVD provides a noise free (with exceptions e.g. *cough* dodgy highlander DVD), high quality visual and audio experience which matches TV and home cinema needs at present.


if you brought out a medium that could take raw uncompressed video and audio and cost 5 times the price people wouldnt buy it (/me looks at Pionir :nuts: ) as it wouldnt look or sound particularly different on their TV set or projector due to resolution limits of both. (video/audiophile nuts excluded).

CD was not a video medium (VCD/SVCD was not a big thing in the west, still isn't), it exploded onto the market mainly due to its data storage capabilities and as such this is what will really drive technologies such as Blu Ray, if it can't provide a cheap mass storage equivalent then it will falter.

as i pointed out, CD came out when Hard drives were 100's of MBs at most, DVD when people had a few GBs, now we have 100's of GBs... where does blu
ray fit in when we all have at least a TerraByte of storage in the next couple of years :clap: (well some of us already have :wave: )

The medium term future for recordable medium under 10 gig lies with memory based systems like flash, mechanical spinning optical vinyl and all its trafficated history will be unable to compete with this for size/speed and convenience.

Above this size magnetic storage is still king for recording density... for now..

HDTV will again only be significant when its mass market affordable and we all have 50" TFT tellies or uber resolution imagers in our projectors and by then Blu Ray capacities will not hack peoples ever growing need for more and more content, portability and WoW factor.

So.. lob Blu Ray in the bin and lets get down to designing a cheap storage system that can store 100's of gigabytes on something the size of a credit card and is non mechanical :) and try and get it to market before we all have at least 100 Terrabytes each with our entire DVD/film collection on in an uber TiVo type unit :lol:

You complain the technology isn't groundbreaking but then say they could have got 8x the capacity with "modern modulation techniques" whatever the hell that is! Frankly, who cares, as long as it delivers what it promises (and it will) who cares if it's groundbreaking technology?

precisely, it could easily be a 400GB disc if the design team got out of the box they are in, so Blu Ray is NOT a new technology, just an old one with a different light wavelength that allows smaller pits in the disc.. it still emulates the principle of the vinyl record though!

How can you say it "will" deliver what it promises, its all marketing speak at present with very little if any real world evidence of durability..

its dvd-ram and bluetooth all over again :gag:

cheers

Bill
Technology reality checker

[DeadKenny]

Where I work we are constantly running out of disc space on our file stores due to how many different departments we have, TV and film, Videogame developers, marketing, customer and consumer services, finance, IT, design and marketing the list goes on and on. Usually we ask people to clean up their drives but these create no real space, a few times we have bought more data storage capacity but in the real world this cost lots of money and is no where cheap as you make it out to be for business. In the end we just decided to buy a DVD burner and for the cost of a few DVD's we can back up lots of data that can be deleted from the main drives, now a Blueray disc at 50GB would make very good sense for a business like us.
You do know that using this kind of media for computer back-up is a bad idea?

It's been proven that the archival and backup qualities of CD-R media is far worse than is claimed. Tests have shown that many discs can be unreadable after just a couple of years and often they are unreadable by anything but the original equipment. CD-RW is worse still, and DVD-Rs suffer a similar if not worse fate because of the higher density involved. BlueRay etc will likely be worse still.

This only affects the recordable media of course. If you were to send your data to a proper CD/DVD pressing lab you'd have less of a problem (but still there are issues with rot and layer separation on multi-layer discs).

Hard discs are also risky to use as reliable backups.

The best backup media is still tape, slow as it is.

[zantarous]

The jury is still out on how badly the data will corrupt on DVD-R but only items that haven’t been used in two or more years are archived to DVD however all items will have been backed up to tape at some point as we do a daily, and weekly backup which can be restored if needed however this, as you correctly state is a time consuming process, but allows us to cover all bases. This gives us the flexible option of a user accessing an old document without having to do a restore yet if worst came to worst as long as the user can remember the path and date of the file we can restore it.

[Pionir]

There are no really sound data archival media. Hard disks are mechanical so can fail, Tapes are magnetic so can fade, and even optical media appears unrealiable.

The only way to be sure is to use a combination and re-archive periodically to 'refresh' the media.

My company has about 4Tb of data on production server hard disks. Although DVD is useful for archiving users word documents, it's clearly no use for our databases, and we certainly won't be bothering with Blu-ray.

Hard disks are the only way forward really at the moment, using redundant SANs across separate geographical sites, replacing failed components as they happen.

[camaj]

dual layer Blu Rays i doubt exist

Like you'd know? FYI, they do exist

erm.. dual layer DVDs are 10GB (well just under), single layer are your 4.7GB.

Well we're not really talking about dual layer. I've got single layer as do most people. There's not much point getting DL when Blu-ray's around the corner. Again, though, this doesn't have much to do with our debate.

a Single layer Blu Ray is claimed 25GB

And a dual layer is 50GB. The 8 layer version (in development) is 200GB. I'm pretty sure it's recordable and non-recordable.


Well the difference betwen VHS and DVD or for that matter laserdisc is significant. Laserdisc was doomed due to size and cost imo

Er, I said the same thing.

99% of people are pefectly happy to sit and watch a TV set with at best 400 lines of visible resolution.

I'm guessing that's based on your own estimates. You could also say 99% were happy with black and white and vinyl when there were no alternatives. Fortunatly most of them chose the better option when there was one and those who didn't were forced to eventually.

CD was not a video medium (VCD/SVCD was not a big thing in the west, still isn't), it exploded onto the market mainly due to its data storage capabilities and as such this is what will really drive technologies such as Blu Ray, if it can't provide a cheap mass storage equivalent then it will falter.

Huh? That had nothing to do with the success of CD. CD is successful because it offers random access. CD-rw was successful because it could store over 600 floppy discs.

as i pointed out, CD came out when Hard drives were 100's of MBs at most, DVD when people had a few GBs, now we have 100's of GBs... where does blu ray fit in when we all have at least a TerraByte of storage in the next couple of years :clap: (well some of us already have :wave: )

The size of HDD's have no relevance. I didn't buy a CD-rw because HDD's were a certain size or not. I bought it because it was cheaper than Zip drives, more flexable and had higher capacity than that or floppy.

All that has ZERO to do with Blu-ray's chances of success. It will effect how successful Blu-ray PC drives are but that's a seperate topic. :shrug:

The medium term future for recordable medium under 10 gig lies with memory based systems like flash,

Expensive solid state memory can't compete with low cost recordable discs.

HDTV will again only be significant when its mass market affordable and we all have 50" TFT tellies or uber resolution imagers in our projectors and by then Blu Ray capacities will not hack peoples ever growing need for more and more content, portability and WoW factor.

Where do you get this stuff? Do you have anything to back up your assertions or are you just fooled by people who talk about a future that never comes?

First off, what's significant got to do with it? It'll be considered semi sucessful when it reaches mass-market prices, but it has already in the US.

What has 50" TFT's got to do with it? While you're waiting for your 50" TFT everyone will be watching there 28" CRT HDTV's. If and when 50" TFT become the norm blu-ray will be more than up to the job. Even if UHDTV comes out 8 or even 16 layers would be enough to handle it.

So.. lob Blu Ray in the bin and lets get down to designing a cheap storage system that can store 100's of gigabytes on something the size of a credit card and is non mechanical :)

Why? If Blu-ray can give us up the required capacity then what's the point. There'd be no point lobbing it in the bin either since if we're waiting for that then we'd be still using vinyl. Did you not bother with DVD because you were waiting for that to come along?


precisely, it could easily be a 400GB disc if the design team got out of the box they are in

What box are they in?

so Blu Ray is NOT a new technology, just an old one with a different light wavelength that allows smaller pits in the disc.. it still emulates the principle of the vinyl record though!

Well not really but it's close enough. But who cares? As long as it does what it does it could be based on ancient egyptian hyroglyphics.

How can you say it "will" deliver what it promises, its all marketing speak at present with very little if any real world evidence of durability..

Becuase there's nothing to suggest it won't. What do you mean by "evidence of durability"? It seems as durable as it need to be and I'm sure it's been tested thoroughly. In fact I think they apply a new coating to stop scratches.

its dvd-ram and bluetooth all over again :gag:

DVD-ram didn't have any prospects, that was clear from the outset. Bluetooth is doing really well so I don't know why you put that in

[ur_the_lame]

hi,

I am not so sure how you quanitify some statements in your posts, mine are from many years of experience in the electronics industry , i am rarely incorrect with predictions , perhaps you may prove me wrong on this one.... maybe not..

"Expensive flash memory", think you need to look at the price of this over the last few years and project its future cost. its very attractive to the industry as its cheap to package and manufacture compared to mechanical stuff.

Zip disks were a dead dog for a similar reason to my views on blu ray , too expensive, not a significant jump in capacity, big and unreliable. it was just a big floppy disk (can i say traffication here :) )

you could even now cram 20 gig of flash in your top shirt pocket, expensive..now.. but you couldnt cram a blu ray disk in there.. ever.. unless you have a very big shirt pocket..

you failed to see my point on traffication but then went on to back it up with reference to the "under development" 200GB mode which will be some ultra twitchy 3 layer thing i suspect.. i re-iterate they need to get out of the blowing pits into a disk vinyl record type technology rutt.

On the subject of Bluetooth, it wasn't the success the marketing hype said it would be, i knew this from day one (mainly as i was tasked to develop bluetooth solutions). it has a hellishly over complicated firmware stack, limited connectivity (7 stations) and too slow to be Lan competetive and too fast and inefficient for serial data and voice applications.

it did get going eventually and succeeded in doing what it set out to do, replace Infra Red in phones/pdas etc.. but at an excessive cost and lengthy r&d phase (compared to IRDA) born from its over complex architecture.

Multi level Flash will be our saviour :clap: , store bytes where we currently store bits in the same way standards such as AGP use mutiple levels to cram more bits per Mhz across another physics limited trafficated system the Parallel BUS :brickwall

anyway, people normally pay for my advice :luv: but this lot was free ..so in summary..

I say blu-ray and the Hd dvd thingy will become the 8 track of this century .. people want small, high capacity, durable and cheap.. its none of them.

of course if anybody wants to fund r&d into an alternative.. mail me :)

Bill

Views expressed by me are not neccesarily the views of my employer but as i kinda manage my employer i guess they are linked :lol:

[Faythur]

What about this then Mr ur_the_lame?

http://www.info-mica.com/en/

http://www.thedvdforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=300896&highlight=future

[camaj]

I am not so sure how you quanitify some statements in your posts, :

I was wondering the same thing about you, you seem to make these bold statement but with no justification or reasoning

mine are from many years of experience in the electronics industry , i am rarely incorrect with predictions ,/QUOTE]

From my years of common sense, neither am I

[QUOTE]its cheap to package and manufacture compared to mechanical stuff.

I'm sure but we're talking about optical media which will always be cheaper than solid state.

Zip disks were a dead dog for a similar reason to my views on blu ray , too expensive

You know think Blu-ray will be expensive? You don't say why you think that though.

but you couldnt cram a blu ray disk in there..

Nor a CD or DVD but should we not have bothered inventing them? :shrug:

you failed to see my point on traffication

I guess I did.

the "under development" 200GB mode which will be some ultra twitchy 3 layer thing i suspect..

With no reason either, I imagine. It'll be 8 layer as I said earlier (25GB/layer)

i re-iterate they need to get out of the blowing pits into a disk vinyl record type technology rutt.

No need, got that the first time. You haven't said why though. You say they need to do it like there's some fundemental flaw but it's been working well for years (decades if you count vinyl).

On the subject of Bluetooth, it wasn't the success the marketing hype said it would be [...] it did get going eventually and succeeded in doing

So it seems a strage thing to use as an example of technological failure.

Multi level Flash will be our saviour :clap:

Do we need a saviour? No. Maybe Solid state will one day be the storage format of choice but only when it's cheaper than a 12cm piece of plastic.

anyway, people normally pay for my advice :luv:

People pay people for advice all the time. A lot of the time it's wrong. Think of all the people advising the people behind Divx that it was a good idea when clearly it wasn't. Same with D-VHS. It doesn't mean you're going to be right.

I say blu-ray and the Hd dvd thingy will become the 8 track of this century .. people want small, high capacity, durable and cheap.. its none of them.

You know what people want?! :lol: It sounds like what you want rather than what people want. People don't care about the technology, they just want something that'd going to give them HD-quality video at a reasonable price, both HD-discs will do that.

BTW, both will be small, high capacity, durable and cheap, even you should be happy.

Anyway like I said before, you've managed to take this off-topic somewhat. You're talking about computer storage devices largely and that's not really in the scope of our discussion. At the end of the day Blu-ray will be launched with an identical competitor and one or both will suceed DVD

[Pionir]

People don't care about the technology, they just want something that'd going to give them HD-quality video at a reasonable price, both HD-discs will do that.

And why will they want that?

DVD looks pretty damn good on my projector, and on a small telly it's nigh-on perfect (if you don't have a wharfedale player and watch something with red in it of course).

I'm going to have to think twice about getting HD-DVD (another piece of hardware!) for a projector and I'm an upgrade victim :) If that's the case for me, the general public will steer well clear unless there is a 'killer app' or they are forced to by old formats being obsolete and I've stated already why I doubt these will happen. /me looks at his 25 year old format CD.

Nothing wrong with being a technology fanboy, but blinding ignoring the possible pitfalls (based on the format wars otf the past) is just silly.

[Taq]

One of the problems is that a crap transfer will always be a crap transfer (esp at projector-type sizes) no matter what resolution you play it at.
"Oooh look I can see the massive oversharpening halos in POTC even better now!"

Until they sort the authoring out and concentrate on making things look good at all levels and not just 14" portables there's not much point in upgrading really.

Taq

[camaj]

And why will they want that?

Why wouldn't they?

Dvd looks pretty damn good on your projector as it does on my monitor (not so good on my tv). However if something looked twice as good then that's going to be desirable.

I think the problem is imaging something that you consider near perfect looking twice as good! But if you saw something you thought was twice as good as perfect, something you couldn't imagine possible until you saw it, wouldn't you want it too?

DVD looks pretty damn good on my projector, and on a small telly it's nigh-on perfect (if you don't have a wharfedale player and watch something with red in it of course).

I don't think DVD had a killer app as such. I think people will buy it for two reasons, one so they can watch films in HD on their HDTV and two, so they can record HD content.

It's a bit silly recording TV to VHS because the recording is far worse than watching it live. In the same way there's little point recording HDTV to DVD, you loose the quality that you've paid to get in the first place!

Nothing wrong with being a technology fanboy

Nothing wrong but at the same time it's a bit pointless to love technology for the sake of it if it's useless.

but blinding ignoring the possible pitfalls (based on the format wars otf the past) is just silly.

Are you saying I'm blindly ignoring the pitfalls? Such as?

[zantarous]

Why do people pay £30 000+ for a top of the range BMW when a £6 000 Micra does the same job? Why do people fly first class when it is considerably cheaper to go economy? Why do people pay to go to gym and use a running machine when they can go run for free out doors?

Your basically assuming all people will not want better quality some will and some won’t, in fact HD-DVD will be mastered from the HD source of the film and have lossless soundtracks so should be more or less a copy of what you see in the cinema.

People were more then happy to watch VHS in stereo why on Earth did they start watching DVD's in 5.1? And seeing as TV on DVD is doing such roaring trade instead of having a show on 6 or seven discs I am sure the average punter would prefer it on one or two discs instead and there by over a period of time cut the cost.

[CLH]

People were more then happy to watch VHS in stereo why on Earth did they start watching DVD's in 5.1? And seeing as TV on DVD is doing such roaring trade instead of having a show on 6 or seven discs I am sure the average punter would prefer it on one or two discs instead and there by over a period of time cut the cost.

They don't do that now.

There has been a huge growth in the sale of widescreen, plasma and home 5.1 kits.

But the largest part of the population still watch it either through a small widescreen with the TV sound or (shudder) on an older 4:3 set.

Half of them don't own an RGB scart!

So we are faced with three markets:

1. The reluctant adopters.
2. The recent adopters.
3. The early adopters.

You can sell HD to 3 fairly easily.

2 will just have spent their money on a load of kit and would like to keep that a bit longer.

1. won't be slightly interested and they'll get to 2's point before they get to 3.

When TESCO and DIXONS gear is 80% HD based we'll see a change.

Imagine selling HD to my mum.

"You'll love this the picture is crystal clear."

"Well I thought DVD was good, looks great to me."

"Yeah, but HD is much better."

"How much better?"

"Tonnes, it'll be like looking out of the window."

"I have a window, I can look out of that."

etc

etc

[DeadKenny]

The "majority" don't have 5.1 set ups, just a stereo 4:3 TV. I know plenty of people who even watch DVDs on a mono TV!!! :eek:

The reason they switched to DVD was because they look exactly like CDs, are a convienient size for storage, more robust than VHS, and are (now) cheap, plus have all kinds of extras. Most people are still happy to record with VHS however, but there's a big market in buying films and TV shows on DVD that was a small market before with VHS.

These people are happy to buy a film whether it's 4:3 pan&scan, cut to shreds, poor quality transfers, etc. The number of times I've advised people to avoid particular releases of DVDs or to import a better one, but they still buy them, because "it was £5 in HMV" :oh-hum:. They treat it like renting a film these days. It's a purchase to watch with the family in the evening and then chuck aside, not some stately treasure collectors item.

In the mass market it's all about price and features and very little to do with quality.

Just because something is noticeably better does not mean all consumers will automatically buy it. Desireable it may be, affordable is another matter.

e.g. a £30k BMW may be better and *some* people pay more, but the majority won't, and will be perfectly happy with their Micras(:lol: ) etc.

As it stands, and as it currently is in the US, HD will be that kind of market. i.e. where *some* people will buy into it if they can afford it, but the mass market will not. Doesn't mean it hasn't/won't take off, but for a long time yet it won't be a product that will replace low-def TV and DVD.


P.S. DVD didn't need a killer app, it *is* a killer app in itself.


The main thing the majority of consumers want at the moment is recordable DVD at a decent price and in an unconfusing form. It's the thing they've been crying out for since DVD was released.

[Pionir]

Why wouldn't they?

Dvd looks pretty damn good on your projector as it does on my monitor (not so good on my tv). However if something looked twice as good then that's going to be desirable.

Because it won't look twice as good -it might have twice the resolution but it won't look twice as good.
Hasn't 70mm cinema film been a roaring success? Hasn't the IMAX format stomped on normal cinemas? Nope, they're niche market products.
70mm film is twice the 'resolution' of 35mm in the cinema.

If you think most people will tell the difference in picture quality you're mistaken. Just take a look around your workplace at the CRTs (if you still have them). Unless someone has set the refresh rates for them, I'd wager 75% of staff will be sitting in front of horrible flickering 60Hz screens getting headaches but not understanding why.

The same people will look at a HD-TV set in dixons (most likely demonstrated using an analogue feed) and think it's no better and that's not even covering the transfer quality issue Taq brought up.

What makes you so sure they'll transfer from HD sources when they still produce shoddy transfers from what look like VHS sources on DVD now? And then they have to take care over the transfer process, even if they have the source.

There are just too many reasons why it won't happen, based on past experience, not marketing promises.

I think the problem is imaging something that you consider near perfect looking twice as good! But if you saw something you thought was twice as good as perfect, something you couldn't imagine possible until you saw it, wouldn't you want it too?

I want a cinema screen in my living room without the pixellation of early projecters. Oh look I already have it with DVD! Why do I need HD-DVD when I have what I want? And that's an upgrade victim speaking!

I don't think DVD had a killer app as such. I think people will buy it for two reasons, one so they can watch films in HD on their HDTV and two, so they can record HD content.

Like I said before, this is a chicken and egg situation. HD-TV won't take off till TV is broadcast in HD. Sky won't do it till they see money in it, and BBC/Freeview is hardly going to push them into it.

And even when it's broadcast, they still won't buy it for a *long* time unless they are forced - even colour TV took about 15 years from first introduction to saturated market share and that was obvious improvement, not just 'a bit better'.

And don't expect a switch off of non HD signals to force people. We're still waiting for Analogue to be switched off as the date is postponed time after time.

So we're left with people using non HD equipment so why would they want HD-DVD. Normal DVD does recording now which was the only reason HD-DVD would be a success, and by the time HD-DVD comes round, DVD-R will have the mass market adoption wrapped up.

Are you saying I'm blindly ignoring the pitfalls? Such as?

Sheesh.

Such as people only adopt things when they see a SIGNIFICANT improvement for the same price, or are forced to by a format disappearing or the price making the old format redundant.

Not adopted by the mass market:
Betamax was better than VHS, but not enough to save it, so people didn't bother.
DCC (Phillips digital tape) was better than old compact cassettes, but no better than CD , so people didn't bother.
Laserdisc was miles better than Video, but too expensive so people didn't bother.
SACD/DVD-Audio are supposedly miles better than CDs (I've never even tried it), but the general public can't tell the quality difference shiny extra features, so people don't bother.

Adopted by the mass market:
CD was significantly better than vinyl or tape, but THE SAME PRICE and people bought it.
DVD was significantly better than Video, but THE SAME PRICE and people bought it.
Colour TV was significantly better than black and white, and people bought it (eventually).

Either HD-DVD will co-exist with DVD at a more expensive price point, which puts it in the the laserdisc category of niche markets, or the SACD/DVD-Audio category of niche markets.

Or DVD will have to be phased out.
But this is very unlikely to be any time soon (look at CDs) as it's a major cash cow for everyone involved and all the investment has already been made, so now it's just sit back and watch the profits as far as the film companies are concerned.

See the pattern yet?

[DeadKenny]

Remember also that it took a hell of a long time to convince Sky to adopt widescreen on their primary channel as they feared the public wouldn't accept it. Even now they get complaints about it having finally gone for it.

Sky's adoption of HD is a foot in the water thing and doesn't mean all their output will suddenly be HD in 2006. It will likely be a single movie channel showing about one or two films in HD, and maybe an HD sports channel with selected sports in HD. Sky One won't be HD for years to follow.


Interesting to note that even on BBC, many sporting events are still in 4:3 despite the channel's dedication to widescreen. Over here it's not like the US where sports are the driving force behind big screen TVs.

[zantarous]

Which sporting events are you referring to, the only 4:3 ones I have seen on the beeb are foreign

[camaj]

Pull up a chair because this is LONG. There were just too many points to counter. I apologise. Also none of the quotes are atributed but that shouldn't make much difference.

They don't do [TV sets on 2 discs] that now.

That's because there isn't the capacity if they wanted to. Blu-ray should fix that eventually but initially I'd imagine the same number of eps/disc.


But the largest part of the population still watch it either through a small widescreen with the TV sound or (shudder) on an older 4:3 set.

Half of them don't own an RGB scart!

Seeing as there's not much difference nor information can you blame them? Instead of a small widescreen analogue set it'll be a small HDTV set.

So we are faced with three markets:

Apparently there are several distinct groups, more than 3 though. For a start if you're classing anyone who didn't recently buy recently as an early adopter then there's a hell of a lot of people in the early adopter group. Anyone who's buying DVD now is probably a reluctant adopter.

When TESCO and DIXONS gear is 80% HD based we'll see a change.

A change in what? :shrug:

Imagine selling HD to my mum.

Frankly she sounds like a right nightmare! You'd have an easier time trying to convince a cat to do tricks. But she got DVD so she can't be a lost cause.

The "majority" don't have 5.1 set ups, just a stereo 4:3 TV. I know plenty of people who even watch DVDs on a mono TV!!!

While Blu-ray will bring improvments in audio quality it's more the icing on the cake. I'd watch DVD on a mono 4:3 set (letterbox naturally) because the picture is as good as a widescreen set with 5.1 sound.

In the mass market it's all about price and features and very little to do with quality.

Sort of. I agree that price is very important for the majority of people but quality is too. People want quality but at a reasonable price. I'd argue that most people don't buy that BMW because it's vastly overpriced for it's relative superiority. If you could get Micra's for 6k and BMW's for 8k I think most would go for the BMW.

Just because something is noticeably better does not mean all consumers will automatically buy it. Desireable it may be, affordable is another matter.

Agreed. But, for the record, I wasn't saying that people would automatically buy something just because it's noticably better.

for a long time yet it won't be a product that will replace low-def TV and DVD.

Again, that's been acknowledged time and time again. It'll be slower than DVD's growth but it'll come. Obviously there are some people that'll get it on day 1 and there are some that will only get it when they have no choice.

The main thing the majority of consumers want at the moment is recordable DVD at a decent price and in an unconfusing form

Until they find out that Blu-ray will make it obsolete. I'm not sure people really want dvd-r that much. We've got Sky+ and other PVR's for timeshifting and even at £200 I think DVD-r is considered expensive.

Because it won't look twice as good -it might have twice the resolution but it won't look twice as good.

Why? Of course it's a subjective point but I'm interested in why you think it won't look twice as good. FYI, it has more than twice the resolution (in pixels) and almost twice the lines. People notice a difference between NTSC and PAL and there's only 16% difference in number of lines.

Hasn't 70mm cinema film been a roaring success? Nope

True. But you can't say that because 1 hi-res format is only a niche product it means Blu-ray will also be a niche product. There's more than 1 factor at play. A better comparison would be film v digital projection (although the differences between the two aren't as large as SD V HD)

If you think most people will tell the difference in picture quality you're mistaken. I'd wager 75% of staff will be sitting in front of horrible flickering 60Hz

That's not the same as noticing the difference in picture quality. I think most people would have a hard time noticing a CRT is running at 60hz or not.

The same people will look at a HD-TV set in dixons (most likely demonstrated using an analogue feed) and think it's no better

And they'd be right too! I'd imagine it'd look no better than other TV's and possibly even worse. But the failure of electronics chains to show their products in the best light is nothing to do with the merits of the technology.

As it happens, It's been mentioned earlier in this thread that some Comet stores are displaying a HDTV with a PC running HD demo's d/l from MS. Now that might not be the best way but it's the best they can do right now.

What makes you so sure they'll transfer from HD sources when they still produce shoddy transfers from what look like VHS sources on DVD now?

Bad transfers isn't symtomatic of the technology just the industry. By definition all DVD's are taken from a HD source (ie film). Only a few use HD transfers (Clerks X springs to mind) and the rest use NTSC/PAL transfers. Of course with Blu-ray, you'd expect them all to use HD transfers but I guess there's nothing to stop them using old transfers. They'll be good and bad HD transfers but that's down to the studios that produce them.

There are just too many reasons why it won't happen

Why what won't happen. Blu-ray/HDTV will happen, whether it's acceptable to you is enitrely your decision.

Why do I need HD-DVD when I have what I want?

That's really something only you can answer. No one "needs" HD. If you have what you want then great but what's to say you won't see HD and want that. Then you won't have what you want and you'll have to buy it.

Like I said before, this is a chicken and egg situation.

It's not though, really. If it was it'd be a stalemate. You could say the same thing about Colour TV. Why would they start broadcasting in colour if no one owned a colour TV and why would anyone buy a colour TV if no one was broadcasting in colour?

I think I said before that clearly the broadcasters will start HD transmissions (because they apprieciate it's capabilities and potental) and then people will buy into it. I don't see why they wouldn't.

Sky won't do it till they see money in it

Not true. Sky will do it in early 2006 so they see the money in it, no brainer really.

And even when it's broadcast, they still won't buy it for a *long* time unless they are forced

They? Consumers presumably, not sky/bbc. No one knows why they will do but as I've said before it'll start off low and grow steadily. Not as fast as DVD but the majority of people will be pulled rather than pushed.

even colour TV took about 15 years from first introduction to saturated market share and that was obvious improvement, not just 'a bit better'.

Are you saying HD is 'a bit better'. Sorry but it's an obvious improvement as any owner will tell you. I've compared it to the switch from B&W to colour in the past and I think it's a good analogy. And like colour it'll take similarly long to saturate the market. Not 15 years, things happen a lot faster now, but around 10 is a fair estimate.

And don't expect a switch off of non HD signals to force people. We're still waiting for Analogue to be switched off as the date is postponed time after time.

I'd imagine that it could happen at the same time as it happens. Actually, I think the analogue turn-off is far more important than the SD switch off. HD can co-exist with SD much better than with analogue. I believe 1 HD channel takes up less room than an analogue channel and twice a SD channel.

So we're left with people using non HD equipment so why would they want HD-DVD.

They wouldn't. Unless they wanted to future proof themselves

Normal DVD does recording now which was the only reason HD-DVD would be a success

:eek: If it's a success it'll be for more than the fact it can record.

by the time HD-DVD comes round, DVD-R will have the mass market adoption wrapped up.

If your saying that there's no point in buying Blu-ray because DVD-r does the job of recording already then your forgetting it won't record HD. If you want to record in HD you'll have to buy something else.

Either HD-DVD will co-exist with DVD at a more expensive price point, which puts it in the the laserdisc category of niche markets

If it was as bad as LD then of course. However you still persist in painting Blu-ray as some sort of modern day LD equivilent. It's not going to be as expensive as LD was. Like I said, it's probably going to be the same price as DVD was when it was first introduced maybe a few pounds more. If it was double the price of DVD then yes it'd would certainly be a niche market, the preserve of Plasma screen owners rather than ordinary folk.

Blu-ray will be significantly better than DVD, but THE SAME PRICE and people will buy it.

Or DVD will have to be phased out.

It won't have to be phased out for Blu-ray to be a success. But like all obsolete formats it'll be slowly phased out through lack of demand.

But this is very unlikely to be any time soon

Naturally. It'll still be here in 5 years.

as it's a major cash cow for everyone involved

As will Blu-ray. The cash cow will still be there just split between Blu-ray and DVD. Actually it's a bit more complex than that since there's going to be Blu-ray and HD-DVD and the HD-DVD lot will want to keep DVD around longer than the Blu-ray lot who will be getting more money from Blu-ray than DVD.

Sky One won't be HD for years to follow

You say that like it's a fact. I wish people would stop doing that, it only confuses peolpe who don't realise it's speculation. Truth is no one knows. Chances are though that the HD service will consist of a movie channel and a sports channel and I can't see why there won't be a Sky One HD channel at launch or soon after.

I feel a bit sorry for DVD in a way. It launched way too late and probably shouldn't have launched at all but I'm glad it did. However when HDTV arrives, we'll have had the same tv system for almost 40 years and DVD is a product of the old system

Now were going to change systems and the old stuff will get left behind. However it's a fresh start and should be with us for another 40 years.

[thescrounger]

Seeing as there's not much difference nor information can you blame them? Instead of a small widescreen analogue set it'll be a small HDTV set.

There won't be marked difference in quality with a small set, 30 inches or less. How are you going to sell a set to someone that doesn't want a large screen?

[camaj]

There won't be marked difference in quality with a small set

Difference between Analogue and HDTV under 30"? What makes you think that?

[zantarous]

There won't be marked difference in quality with a small set, 30 inches or less. How are you going to sell a set to someone that doesn't want a large screen?

Just have a look at the threads in the TV forum or tech forum about how crappy football looks or how rubbish some of the SD transitions are, and that is currently on the small SD sets people are currently watching.

When TESCO and DIXONS gear is 80% HD based we'll see a change.

Technically you could argue that that 80% figure has been reached already by Dixons. In the three large store near where I live the majority of floor space has now been given to LCD's and Plasmas some of which will have no problem with a HD feed and with 32" LCD's going for 1k and 42" Plasmas going for well under 2K I think we will see a real shift in the next few years. Although for me CRT is still king and would gladly buy another 36" for HD viewing.

Plus HD ready sets will not have to have expensive tuners in them just the ability to take the HD signal.

As for Sky One not being HD from the off that is a given, but the majority of the big US shows SKY do buy a lot of them do broadcast in HD so there is nothing stopping SKY broadcasting a HD feed of certain programmes and I would imagine that they are currently already buying the HD versions of show as they had been purchasing WS programmes well before they even announced that they would be making the switch.

[Pionir]

Just have a look at the threads in the TV forum or tech forum about how crappy football looks or how rubbish some of the SD transitions are, and that is currently on the small SD sets people are currently watching.

That's because Sky insist on using stupidly low bitrates, nothing to do with the quality of the TV resolution. High definition MPEG pixellation is hardly a selling point.

[thescrounger]

That's because Sky insist on using stupidly low bitrates, nothing to do with the quality of the TV resolution. High definition MPEG pixellation is hardly a selling point.

Exactly.


And your average punter watching a 30 inch screen from 5 feet away won't notice much if any difference between SD and HD on a screen that size. I'm talking CRT not LCD.


HDTV will only offer a real visual benefit when displayed on a screen from about 36inches and above.

[zantarous]

That's because Sky insist on using stupidly low bitrates, nothing to do with the quality of the TV resolution. High definition MPEG pixellation is hardly a selling point.


That maybe the case but then one could say that SKY has been engineering this all along so they can sell Hi Def TV? All I can say until you actually see a Hi Def picture you cannot appreciate how good it looks. The service will always be there for those that are willing to pay the premium for them.

[Pionir]

That maybe the case but then one could say that SKY has been engineering this all along so they can sell Hi Def TV? All I can say until you actually see a Hi Def picture you cannot appreciate how good it looks. The service will always be there for those that are willing to pay the premium for them.

Exactly - pay the premium. It's going to be a big premium too - if Sky have to swap 2 subscriber channels for one high definition channel, they'll have to charge twice the price (assuming pricing structures is linear which I know it probably isn't).

As I've been saying, there's no doubt HD-everything will one day turn up, but not at affordable prices for a long time, and it'll probably take several 'new' products before it breaks through to mass market.

Laserdisc was around a good 20 years in it's various guises at a premium price until DVD superceded it.

HD market take up will be painfully slow as we no longer have a benevolent benefactor in the guise of the BBC (as with colour) because they're under severe commercial pressures these days.

[zantarous]

Exactly - pay the premium. It's going to be a big premium too - if Sky have to swap 2 subscriber channels for one high definition channel, they'll have to charge twice the price (assuming pricing structures is linear which I know it probably isn't).


What on Earth are you talking about swapping two subscriber channels? HD will need a whole new satellite and new equipments from SKY they will not just stop broadcasting channels that bring in money. And when I said premium I do only mean something like £10-15 pounds at the most added to the total bill which would be line with the pricing structure in the US.

HD market take up will be painfully slow as we no longer have a benevolent benefactor in the guise of the BBC (as with colour) because they're under severe commercial pressures these days.

That’s why the BBC has already invested heavily in HD and have begun filming shows in that format? Remember the BBC is not only a UK company but the operate all over the world and offer services in the US and Australia where HD is already operating so once they are ready in the UK they will already have a library full of broadcast material.

I don’t really understand the point that you are trying to make as you state that HD will eventually be the standard yet you are arguing so heavily against it?

[thescrounger]

I personally think that when people see large plasmas in shops with a much better image than is currently on display with SD, they will want it.

This of course means it's up to places like Dixons to have it all set up properly. Even set up incorrectly though HDTV should still look better than SD on plasma type screens.

[DeadKenny]

That maybe the case but then one could say that SKY has been engineering this all along so they can sell Hi Def TV? All I can say until you actually see a Hi Def picture you cannot appreciate how good it looks. The service will always be there for those that are willing to pay the premium for them.

Sky's (Murdoch's) strategy has always been about quantity and (in the case of sports) exclusivity of content, rather than quality. I seriously doubt they've had some grand scheme about fleecing the public with HD.

[thescrounger]

I reckon SKY just want to be the front runners, and they will be.

[camaj]

HDTV will only offer a real visual benefit when displayed on a screen from about 36inches and above.

I'll ask again since you ignored me the first time: What makes you think that? Did you just invent the figure 36 inches? :shrug:

[DeadKenny]

I reckon SKY just want to be the front runners, and they will be.

They weren't when it came to widescreen and weren't very interested either.

[thescrounger]

I'll ask again since you ignored me the first time: What makes you think that? Did you just invent the figure 36 inches? :shrug:

No, I've seen it in action. Does it not seem realistic to you or something?

[thescrounger]

They weren't when it came to widescreen and weren't very interested either.

Well, SKY seem to be the only people with an HD launch date. That makes them seem more interested than other parties.

[camaj]

No, I've seen it in action. Does it not seem realistic to you or something?

No. It defies logic as well and it's been confirmed by HDTV owners I've spoken to.

Well, SKY seem to be the only people with an HD launch date

The BBC have mentioned a start date around the same time but it's possible that it'll only be for those who have Sky.

[thescrounger]

No. It defies logic as well and it's been confirmed by HDTV owners I've spoken to.

It doesn't defy logic at all. I could tell the difference, what I'm saying is your average punter WILL NOT notice an appreciable difference between SD and HD on a small screen. :brickwall

[thescrounger]

The BBC have mentioned a start date around the same time but it's possible that it'll only be for those who have Sky.

In other words, SKY are taking the lead. As I said.

[splobber]

Did you just invent the figure 36 inches? :shrug:

I bet all the girls say that to him.

:razz:

[zantarous]

It doesn't defy logic at all. I could tell the difference, what I'm saying is your average punter WILL NOT notice an appreciable difference between SD and HD on a small screen. :brickwall

Your average punter cannot tell the difference between VHS and DVD on a 20" screen, as Deadkenny has stated, but that didn't stop DVD becoming a mass-market success. In fact your average punter doesn't know his RGB's from his progressive scan but that hasn't stopped manufacturers adding a second or third RGB scart to TV's, or adding PS to even the cheapest of DVD players. Their are CRT's on the market that retail for under £500 which have progressive scan on them but I bet most owners haven't a clue what it is for.

[thescrounger]

Your average punter cannot tell the difference between VHS and DVD on a 20" screen, as Deadkenny has stated, but that didn't stop DVD becoming a mass-market success. In fact your average punter doesn't know his RGB's from his progressive scan but that hasn't stopped manufacturers adding a second or third RGB scart to TV's

DVD took off as a mass market because it suddenly became cheap, movies were on discs, they have a lot of bonus material. Your average punter was attracted to those things more than the improved picture quality.

HDTV is going to be a hard sell to the mass public. If most households have a 28 inch set, why would they want HDTV when at 28 inches there is little difference as far as they can see.

[zantarous]

DVD took off as a mass market because it suddenly became cheap, movies were on discs, they have a lot of bonus material. Your average punter was attracted to those things more than the improved picture quality.

HDTV is going to be a hard sell to the mass public. If most households have a 28 inch set, why would they want HDTV when at 28 inches there is little difference as far as they can see.

Your average punter doesn't give a stuff about bonus material heck most people on this forum admit to not watching most of it, how can you claim that DVD didn't take of because it had better picture after all the marketing bods have been pushing that aspect and all marketing and advertising material. No one wouldn’t bother buying it if it did not offer better performance, most people didn’t buy movies on VHS why would they suddenly start doing it in DVD even if it came on disc? Evan my wife who couldn't tell composite from RGB even realised that there is a big difference in picture quality.

Also 28" TV are a very recent thing your average punter has been used to a 20" TV as the main plus I would say that it is an even split between 28" and 32" TV in homes and with flat screens falling at the rapid rate they are it will not be long before that figure increases.

[thescrounger]

Regardless of what you think about DVD. The take up of HDTV is a whole different ball game.

[Pionir]

What on Earth are you talking about swapping two subscriber channels? HD will need a whole new satellite and new equipments from SKY they will not just stop broadcasting channels that bring in money. And when I said premium I do only mean something like £10-15 pounds at the most added to the total bill which would be line with the pricing structure in the US.
Just assuming the bandwidth of a low res channel is half that of a high res channel, so the choice is going to be how to use it.

I don’t really understand the point that you are trying to make as you state that HD will eventually be the standard yet you are arguing so heavily against it?
I'm just saying I think HD-DVD (the theme of the topic remember?) won't be a roaring success with mass market introduction for a very long time. HD-TV broadcasts will drive HD televisions, but I see this on a long timescale too, leaving some other "High Definition Video Disc" (lets call it) to be the truly mass market product. Probably in 10-20 years and probably not DVD format.

I could be wrong, but that's the thing about predictions :) I've based mine on past examples whereas alot of others *cough* camaj *cough*base theirs on wishful thinking :)

Your average punter doesn't give a stuff about bonus material heck most people on this forum admit to not watching most of it,<snip>
I can't believe you compared people on this forum with average punters :]

[zantarous]

Regardless of what you think about DVD. The take up of HDTV is a whole different ball game.

:lol: That has to be the funniest thing you have written, the ball game is very different but like I said I don't really care as long as I have access to HD. If punters only wanted movies on a disc regardless of quality. they could buy VCD’s for $3 of yesasia.

I could be wrong, but that's the thing about predictions I've based mine on past examples whereas alot of others *cough* camaj *cough*base theirs on wishful thinking

Camaj is about the only person on this thread talking any sense what so ever. You keep going on about laserdisc being a failure, but the market has come a long way since 1979, today’s consumer is far savvier.

I can't believe you compared people on this forum with average punters :]

And the point being that if people who visit a message aboard to discuss DVD because they love the format so much don’t really care that much about extras why would the average punter want it? :?:

[Pionir]

You keep going on about laserdisc being a failure, but the market has come a long way since 1979, today’s consumer is far savvier.
But laserdisc went on for 20 years until DVD took over. Consumers must have been savvy at some point during the Laserdisc years otherwise DVD would never have taken off as they overlapped, but still LD wasn't mass market stuff.

And the point being that if people who visit a message aboard to discuss DVD because they love the format so much don’t really care that much about extras why would the average punter want it? :?:
Exactly the same can be said about the extra quality of HD-DVD, HD-TV etc

[DeadKenny]

I still say the real test of any product like this is to ask yourself...

Would your parents buy it?

(or even grandparents!)

[zantarous]

I still say the real test of any product like this is to ask yourself...

Would your parents buy it?

(or even grandparents!)

My mum has bought a HD ready set (she lives in the states) simply because she wanted something that would not be obsolete anytime soon but then again she also bought a BMW and not the Micra. You really would be surprised at the type of people that buy kind of stuff, it maybe be different for me living in London I am constantly shocked going round to peoples homes and seeing plasmas or projectors or 5.1 systems from people who have no interest in home cinema they just want the latest gadgets.

[Pionir]

My mum has bought a HD ready set (she lives in the states) simply because she wanted something that would not be obsolete anytime soon but then again she also bought a BMW and not the Micra. You really would be surprised at the type of people that buy kind of stuff, it maybe be different for me living in London I am constantly shocked going round to peoples homes and seeing plasmas or projectors or 5.1 systems from people who have no interest in home cinema they just want the latest gadgets.
That's where opinions can differ. I think people wanting the latest gadgets are a small proportion of the 'mass market'.
The family with 2 kids, struggling to pay the mortgage isn't going to get a plasma, a projector or HD-TV set unless they're forced, or it's dead cheap because they just can't afford it.
The young professional (15-29) makes up only 30% of the current UK workforce, whereas 45% are 30-49 and 25% are 50-64 so market saturation of that group still isn't really mass market acceptance.
I fit in the middle group (just) as a youngish couple with no kids, but with a hefty mortgage, and every bit of kit I buy is a stretch and needs to be carefully justified.
If we had kids, I would have no spare income and certainly wouldn't be able to spend a couple of grand on a new plasma/projector or even a few hundred on an HD-DVD player or telly that only gets wrecked by the kids :0

[jayok]

:lol: That has to be the funniest thing you have written, the ball game is very different but like I said I don't really care as long as I have access to HD.

You will have access to HD-DVD if you want it. If the 'masses' do not take to the format, you will pay a premium for that access. Good luck to you if that is what you want to spend your money on. Until such time as I am convinced that there is a really noticable difference (in my eyes), I will not move to HD-DVD. I have a million other things to spend my money on (married with 2 kids, mortgage and a pension to fund!).

[camaj]

Camaj is about the only person on this thread talking any sense what so ever.

I'd like to think so anyway :thumbs:

In other words, SKY are taking the lead. As I said

I wasn't disagreeing, just embelishing

It doesn't defy logic at all. I could tell the difference, what I'm saying is your average punter WILL NOT notice an appreciable difference between SD and HD on a small screen.

I know what you're saying and clearly I don't think that's accurate. It does defy logic

Your average punter cannot tell the difference between VHS and DVD on a 20" screen

The public are stupid sometimes but you'd have to be near blind not to notice the difference at any size!

DVD took off as a mass market because it suddenly became cheap, movies were on discs

They didn't suddenly become cheap, they started costlier than VHS but market forces drove them down. Also, as I said before, you should state that as a fact when it isn't. No one can say why DVD took off precisley, only that there were a number of possible factors.

HDTV is going to be a hard sell to the mass public.

I doubt it. It hasn't been that tough in the USA either and they've only just started getting affordable sets and they still don't have viable recording options or the ability to watch pre-recorded material. Just think what would have happened if all that was available from the launch of HDTV in the US! Also the amount of HD programing has grown and continues to grow where as we'll have lot of it at launch.

If most households have a 28 inch set, why would they want HDTV when at 28 inches there is little difference as far as they can see.

If you're correct they wouldn't. Why would anyone upgrade to something that isn't superior? What if the opposite was true and not only was the difference noticable it was staggering?

Evan my wife

Your wife's name is Evan? :p

I'm just saying I think HD-DVD won't be a roaring success with mass market introduction for a very long time.

I don't think anyone disagreeing with that (maybe on the exact time). However the cynics in this thread are doing more than that, suggesting it'll never catch on. Wasn't it you who said it'd be a niche product like LD was?

Niche product or roaring success (eventually), which one is it?

leaving [something else] to be the truly mass market product

Isn't roaring success truly mass market? While I don't doubt they'll be another format along I'd see it replacing HD-DVD as that will do with DVD. I just don't see HD-DVD being niche and then a better HD product being mass market.

Anyway if HD-DVD doesn't take off why would a higher res do so? All the arguments against HD-DVD would be even more applicable to HD-DVD2 (if they were correct). Are some people going to suggest you'd need a 65" Plasma to notice the difference and that people don't care about the picture quality anyway.

I've based mine on past examples whereas alot of others *cough* camaj *cough*base theirs on wishful thinking

Mine are based on the evidence available, my desire for HD and the history of home electronics. If it were based on wishful thinking, everyone would by HD on day 1 and all the terrestrial broadcasters would start a full service at the same time as would sky and the equipment would be cheaper than the analogue stuff you by today.

today’s consumer is far savvier

Yes, but to what effect? I don't know if it makes any difference. Are you suggesting that LD failed because people weren't savvy enough?

[If forumites aren't interested, why would the public?] Exactly the same can be said about the extra quality of HD-DVD

Again, that's true. But you're saying the people here aren't interesting in HD which isn't true. Some are, some aren't and some are :shrug:

I still say the real test of these products is would your parents buy it?

Not a great test TBH, it depends on everyone's parents and there's as much difference in opinion as there is here. My dad would but his brother wouldn't.

The family isn't going to get a HD-TV set unless they're forced, or it's dead cheap because they just can't afford it.

Can't disagree with that. Some of them will be forced (replacing broken TV) and they'll be dead cheap fairly soon. That doesn't have much baring on the success of HD only that it'll slow its growth down.

Until I am convinced that there is a really noticable difference (in my eyes), I will not move to HD-DVD

Goes without saying. If you're not convinced you shouldn't do it, there'd be no point. I wouldn't do it either. However, I'm already convinced

I also think I mentioned there were more than 3 stages of adoption. I've done a search and this is what I think I remember

Innovators: Venturesome
Early Adopters: Respectable
Early Majority: Deliberate
Late Majority: Skeptical
Late Adopters: Traditional

The Mass market is split between the Early and Late Majority. Someone like my dad is in the Early Majority and someone like my Uncle is in the Late Majority (going back to the parents test)

[CLH]

For those advocating take up based on the number of plasmas being sold.

How many have opted for the really cheap models in Dixons already that won't support HD??

[Taq]

This thread seems to have turned into a pointless paraphrase-a-thon. There's no point in quoting part of one line and then commenting on it as the context can be totally lost (usually much to the annoyance of the original poster who then does the same thing back again).

To answer the question - "what happens to us brits when High Def DVD's come out?" - we either buy something to view them on or we stick to normal DVD :)
Whether it'll be actually worth upgrading only time will tell...

Taq

[zantarous]

To answer the question - "what happens to us brits when High Def DVD's come out?" - we either buy something to view them on or we stick to normal DVD :)


Taq

13 pages latter and I think we have an answer everyone can be happy about. I wonder if this thread will be about in a couple of years so we can have look back and see how wrong/right we were?

[CLH]

To be honest most people are arguing about the same point.

Speed of takeup.

There is still a risk of no takeup but that's fairly slim.

[Pionir]

Speed of takeup also affects how far HD-DVD penetrates the market (ooh-er), because if it's only at 10% market share in 20 years time (like laserdisc :)), and someone introduces 500Gb memory stick based films for £10 each and 2x the HD-DVD resolution, then HD-DVD will be dead in the water

500Gb memory sticks £10....mmmmmm....

[zantarous]

But your still then in the same cycle, you would still have to buy a new TV that handles twice the resolution of current HD and of course a player that can play these memory cards.