Linked by Eugenia Loli on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 07:53 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems Geeks.com sent us in a next generation DVD player, the Toshiba HD-A2 HD-DVD player. The model is the little brother of the HD-XA2 with fewer features, but it's the only HD player that sells at $230 while using the newer, second generation HD-DVD technology.
Order by: Score:
Too little, too late
by bolomkxxviii on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 10:38 UTC
bolomkxxviii
Member since:
2006-05-19

While I am glad to see HD-DVD capable components come down to a reasonable price, I doubt this unit will do much to stop the tide of Blu-ray. The author claimed to not be concerned with the lack of 1080p resolution, but to me, that alone would removed it from my list of candidates. Add to that the problems of a 24 second boot time and limited audio connection choices and I just can't see this unit selling very well. How big is the market for a "budget" HD-DVD player? If you are going to spend the big bucks for that nice big HDTV are you going to save a couple of hundred dollars on the unit that is going to feed it content? It is a shame really. I would prefer to see HD-DVD win over Blu-Ray (for personal reasons). With the announced deal between Blu-Ray and Blockbuster, the HD-DVD camp really needs to come out with something special to counter that deal. I am afraid this unit just isn't it.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Too little, too late
by Eugenia on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 10:44 UTC in reply to "Too little, too late"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

Sorry, but I do not agree. There are a lot of people who already have 1080i TVs (in fact, that's the VAST majority of them) and they would like an HD playback device. If you want the extra abilities like the super-sound that most people won't even make up the difference neither they have the right audio equipment (so really, do you need that?) and 1080p, you can purchase the HD-XA2 instead, but that would be $400, not $230.

For example, in our home we are very technically inclined, and yet, we don't have plans to upgrade our 1080i TV. It serves us well. The cheapest 1080p TV above 50" costs $2600 you see. Not everyone can afford that, most people buy 32" 1080i TVs for $600.

So in my opinion, there is certainly market space for this cheaper model.

Edited 2007-06-22 10:46

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Too little, too late
by Ookaze on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 14:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Too little, too late"
Ookaze Member since:
2005-11-14

What double standard nonsense!
You say things like people won't notice the difference in the sound and don't have the equipment, but they will have the right display and will make a difference from 720p?
All this while you don't even have the right display to begin with, so really, do you need that (HD-DVD, BluRay)?

And you say you are technically inclined in your home, which doesn't mean you know enough about HT devices.
If you were so technically inclined towards HD displays, you'd know that the RPTV SXRD are among the best displays (for SD AND HD) and cost less than $2600 for 55". Of course, they are not as slim as LCD or Plasma (yet they are lighter).

Besides, buying 32" 1080 TV is pure nonsense, only people not technically inclined, waved by marketing speech would do that. Because 32" just isn't enough to render the 1080 definition. I'm even pretty sure no 32" display are full HD, they must be 720p display. I'm talking displays for the living room of course, not the ones for PC, which are 16/10 and not 16/9, where you need to have your eyes inches from the screen, seeing in full scale all the defects of LCD displays (screendoor, banding, ...).

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Too little, too late
by Eugenia on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 18:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Too little, too late"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

> You say things like people won't notice the difference in the sound and don't have the equipment, but they will have the right display and will make a difference from 720p?

That's exactly what I am saying. I could say the difference VERY SLIGHTLY, and yet I have a 55" TV. If I had a 32", like most people have, I wouldn't have. And sound, is WAY more difficult to tell apart, especially because most people don't even have a theater surround system, and the ones who do usually bought it for $50 (I bought mine for $350).

> I'm even pretty sure no 32" display are full HD, they must be 720p display.

You are wrong, again. You can ask Thom, he has a full 1080i TV, and it's only 17". At 32", it's a piece of cake.

> If you were so technically inclined towards HD displays, you'd know that the RPTV SXRD are among the best displays

I said 55" for $2600 at 1080p, not 1080i. SXRDs are not that cheap. We looked them up, just a month ago in fact with my husband. They were about $3000 for a 46" I think. That size is not something I would want to replace my 55", even if the SXRD technology is better. Not for that kind of money anyway (I bought my TV at just $1750).

I suggest you are more careful how you reply here. Your tone is not acceptable. It feels polemic, and you think you know everything about me and what I know and what I don't.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Too little, too late
by dmcgrath on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 18:57 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Too little, too late"
dmcgrath Member since:
2007-06-22

For the record, at Circuit City (both online and in the store), you can get a 60" SXRD for $2299 ( http://www.circuitcity.com/ccd/productDetail.do?oid=152039&WT.mc_n=... ).

I only point this out as you get on their case for being uppity and rude, but you quote a price from a month ago, by your own admission. Given the fact that this is a significant time in terms of consumer electronics, prices are bound to have changed.

Just my two cents.

edit: corrected time frame.

Edited 2007-06-22 19:05

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Too little, too late
by Eugenia on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 19:29 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Too little, too late"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

$2300 is still a lot of money for most people. The HD-DVD player I am reviewing is for consumers who never invested more than $1000 on their TV. That's where the "budget player" comes in. I don't understand why you slap in the face this and that, YOU around here, YOU who read this web site are all geeks! Geeks want the best of the best all the time -- even if sometimes they don't have the money for it. But this player I reviewed, is a BUDGET one, it's the cut-off version of the HD-XA2 model. And people who will buy this player, don't make more than $70 ,000 a year and they definitely don't buy XSRDs every 6 months. They have a TV, and they stay with it. Don't let the "geek side" of you start thinking that people have 1080p TVs. People DO NOT have 1080p TVs. Very few do.

And I wasn't rude. Rude, was the person I was replying to. If you had someone replying to you that way, you would have reacted the same way. Cut me some slack here.

Edited 2007-06-22 19:31

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Too little, too late
by flanque on Sat 23rd Jun 2007 08:02 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Too little, too late"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

People are complaining about the cost of the PS3 at what $499? To pay $2300 for what is essentially just a TV is pretty expensive.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Too little, too late
by Ookaze on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 21:19 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Too little, too late"
Ookaze Member since:
2005-11-14

That's exactly what I am saying. I could say the difference VERY SLIGHTLY, and yet I have a 55" TV

OMG!
Of course you can't make the difference, I bet your source is from broadcast. That's exactly what I said elsewhere. You can't make the difference, but that's not at all because of what you think. The bandwidth allocated to the signal and the compressed interlaced signal is the reason you won't see any difference.

And sound, is WAY more difficult to tell apart, especially because most people don't even have a theater surround system, and the ones who do usually bought it for $50 (I bought mine for $350)

Nonsense! The difference is the same as between a compressed 128 bps MP3 and a CD. Even with crappy material, you will hear the difference. It won't be obvious immediately depending on the material, exactly like a HD display with HD versus SD content.

You are wrong, again. You can ask Thom, he has a full 1080i TV, and it's only 17". At 32", it's a piece of cake

Wrong again. If it's a 1080i TV like you say, that is, again, marketing material. 1080i means it's a CRT, and no CRT can display all the 1080 lines. They are compatible, but can't display them all, except very expensive labo ones used by broadcasters to verify their source, and they're bigger than 17".

I said 55" for $2600 at 1080p, not 1080i. SXRDs are not that cheap. We looked them up, just a month ago in fact with my husband. They were about $3000 for a 46" I think

When I said you were wrong, I couldn't imagine just how much. That's why I specifically told you about SXRD RPTV, which are NOT the same as the LCD ones.
These don't come in 46" size, these are 50", 55" (in Europe), 60", and I think 70". And I'm sure the 50" model is below $2000, and the 60" model must be below $2600.

you think you know everything about me and what I know and what I don't

On the matter of HD hardware, that's just because it shows. I sure enough don't know everything about you, but when you say you are all technically inclined in your family, so what you say must be absolute truth, that's just deceiving. But you're welcome to prove me wrong on all the things I responded to, about region-unlocked DVD hard to come by in the USA, about all HDTV being more expensive than $2600 at sizes above 50", about all digital HDTV not being progressive, about 1080i/p HDTV not useful below some size (40" usually), ...

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Too little, too late
by Eugenia on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 21:28 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Too little, too late"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

> between a compressed 128 bps MP3 and a CD.

YOU DON'T READ what I said. I said most people don't have the AUDIO SPEAKERS needed to TELL the difference.

>I bet your source is from broadcast.

WTH are you talking about?? What broadcast source?? I am talking about HD-DVDs that were shot as 1080p.

>1080i means it's a CRT,

It's a 17" LCD.

>These don't come in 46" size,

Are you going to bust my balls over details? I looked at XSRDs as I said a month ago, I didn't memorize all the tech specs by heart. I am not a fanatic you know, neither I am looking forward to buy one (I was just checking them out cursory in the Sony store, with my husband).

You are taking a LOT of things out of context, and there is no point trying to change your mind. Your replies are simply POLEMIC, and I don't understand why. In fact, whatever you write here is not in the context of a budget HD player. It is my opinion that even most families in the developed first world countries don't have huge speakers or 1080p TVs. They have more normal hardware (usually, 32" 1080i TVs, cheap surround system or none at all). And for THESE families, this budget player DOES THE JOB.

So, stop breaking my balls about details. You are a GEEK and you look at details even how a pixel would look different than its neighbour. Normal people DO NOT see the difference. People who would buy this player, are NOT engadget/gizmodo readers.

Please reply in your comments in a way that makes sense for THIS product, not what we can buy if we had as much money as Bill Gates or if were all MIT researchers that would scrutinize every bit of technological detail. This product review is NOT about these kind of consumers. This is why there is a more expensive Toshiba model that does more. Because each one is targeted at different markets. Can you please now do your commenting with the appropriate point of view??

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Too little, too late
by Eugenia on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 21:52 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Too little, too late"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

>>>1080i means it's a CRT,
>It's a 17" LCD.

Also please don't bust my balls about the technical differences of CRTs being 30/60 or 25/50 and LCDs being 60 Hz. Not interested. The point is, the output looks as 1080i and that's what matters.

Let me also add that I live in one of the most rich/expensive regions of the world, in the Silicon Valley. And wherever we see people buying TVs, usually these TVs are 1080i, at smaller than 50". So, again, don't put your "Geek hat" when you reply in this article, put a more realistic hat about what the market is right now and how this product can (or not) please the vast majority of consumers. My opinion is, based to what hardware MOST consumers own today, this player does the job. That's my last take on the subject.

Edited 2007-06-22 21:59

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Too little, too late
by Ookaze on Sun 24th Jun 2007 07:46 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Too little, too late"
Ookaze Member since:
2005-11-14

YOU DON'T READ what I said. I said most people don't have the AUDIO SPEAKERS needed to TELL the difference.

I do!
I cited MP3 128 and CD, because even with crappy headphones and a basic CD player and MP3 player, you can hear a difference. If it can reassure you, I don't have the equipment either, as with HD media, the sound is decoded in the player, not in the receiver.

WTH are you talking about?? What broadcast source?? I am talking about HD-DVDs that were shot as 1080p

So they can't be 1080i if they're shot at 1080p... 1080i sources are either for documentary or direct to TV originated content.

It's a 17" LCD

So it's not 1080i. It's a HD ready (around 1280x720 resolution, perhaps even 768 which is worse) TV that is inherently PROGRESSIVE. Eugenia, no digital TV (be it plasma, LCD, DLP, SXRD) is interlaced by nature. Only CRT are interlaced, due to their technology. Your digital TVs CAN'T display interlaced. They're forced to deinterlace to display interlaced content. That's why I'm sure, like I told you, that his 17" display can display 1080i, by downscaling the signal, but is NOT a 1080x1920 native resolution display.
AFAIK, there's no TV maker that make 1920x1080" displays below 32" (IIRc even 40"), because it doesn't make sense (the added resolution is lost at these sizes). Except inside RPTV (SXRD, not DLP), where the (3) displays are less than 2 inches wide.

Your replies are simply POLEMIC, and I don't understand why. In fact, whatever you write here is not in the context of a budget HD player

That was not to be polemic, but I'll tell you why I reacted.
That's because the HD realm is a pretty deceiving and complicated one, and this is going on with this player. People are lost between all this talk of HD ready, Full HD (even you were fooled in believing that a HD display that supports 1080i is a 1080i display, which doesn't make sense), receivers that supposedly support HD media, when in fact, sound is always decoded in the player for "IP" reasons, ...
HD is a mess, but HD's goal is quality. There's nearly no point in a HDDVD player like that. It's hinted at the fact that it comes with a composite cable, which is the last straw.
The sole reason of providing a cheap player like that, is to allow you to watch media that looks good on the digital displays, because SD media usually suffer A LOT on these displays (with some exceptions, like the SXRD RPTV I talked about, and the Pioneer Elite plasmas, or using external scalers).
People won't have the full benefits of what they pay for (1080p@24), but at least, it will look good on their display, because, like you said, it can output the 1080p content at 1080i, and a lot more old HDTV support 1080i but not 1080p.
But when it comes with a composite cable, all that benefit is lost. I talked about the Oppo, which is a DVD player, not only because it's so good, but also because it comes with a HDMI cable in the box.
Coming with a composite cable for a HD player is not acceptable. To actually enjoy better quality than a DVD, they will have to buy an expensive HDMI (or YUV, which should have been the bare minimum) cable, so that's nonsense. Eugenia, this player, with its composite cable, will actually look WORSE than the quality stored in a DVD. Composite cable is the WORST quality of all the connections.
To sum up, to me, this player is one more example of deceptive hardware in the HD world. Because you know, buying the HDMI cable will inflate its price, but worse, not everyone will know they have to buy one.
A LOT of people wonder what all this HD thing is about, because they look at HD content downgraded, or at SD content that looks worse. Fortunately, they're happy because the screen is slim (except for RPTV).

It is my opinion that even most families in the developed first world countries don't have huge speakers or 1080p TVs. They have more normal hardware (usually, 32" 1080i TVs, cheap surround system or none at all). And for THESE families, this budget player DOES THE JOB.

You're right, and that's another shame, but you put it out better than me: they're basically trying to sell people things that they CAN'T take advantage of. We are still in the early adopters stage, and if you don't have 40"+ with the 6 speakers minimum, you are losing nearly all the value of HD media. Being in that stage, of course it's expensive. This is profitting on people's ignorance at an even higher level than before.

You are a GEEK and you look at details even how a pixel would look different than its neighbour. Normal people DO NOT see the difference. People who would buy this player, are NOT engadget/gizmodo readers

OK, right. Except that it is all this HD thing that is a geek thing for now. If people don't see the difference, which I agree with, they are actually better off with a upscaling DVD player, as I suppose they won't buy again all their DVD in HD media.
HD is about quality, and it's not my fault that it's so expensive. But if you're knowledgeable about the thing, buying this player would be only for bragging rights (geek thing).
And, people that buy these kind of hardware should not be price sensitive people, especially buying HD DVD player, as the format war is NOT finished, and it seems like HD DVD is losing (I know it's a PR battle for now, but the signs are genuine this time). Like I said, we are still in the geek phase.
And don't think I'm for one or another, as the PS3 (BluRay player) comes with a composite cable too, though being far more expensive. There's a $320 BluRay player too, but I don't know if it comes with a composite cable, so you see, I don't know it all.
You should know that in HT realm, the cheaper price is not always the best choice, it's even often the worst choice, which is why, unfortunately, so much research has to be made to buy anything at a good price, or at least knowing what you're doing.

I think what I'm saying, is that you can try to sell cheap products to people, but at least, inform them of what the drawbacks are, which are significant for this player.
And what I say is not even against you, as perhaps my tone seemed like I attacked you, but that's not my intention at all. Busting the misunderstanding is my goal.

Edited 2007-06-24 07:46

Reply Score: 3

v RE[2]: Too little, too late
by Rlwimi on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 21:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Too little, too late"
RE[3]: Too little, too late
by Eugenia on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 21:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Too little, too late"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

Rlwimi, both your comments are innappropriate. First, you called a reader "pathetic" and now you accuse us of "marketing money" (which of course it is not true).

Be careful how you reply over here, or your account will be banned.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Too little, too late
by flanque on Sat 23rd Jun 2007 08:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Too little, too late"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

Swing your sabar Eugenia, for you are the power that be.

Reply Score: 2

v RE: Too little, too late
by Rlwimi on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 21:01 UTC in reply to "Too little, too late"
RE: Too little, too late
by Moochman on Sat 23rd Jun 2007 08:15 UTC in reply to "Too little, too late"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

What personal reasons could you have for wanting HD-DVD to win? Hatred of Sony? HD DVD has a lower capacity per disk, which will suck for consumers once recordable discs become standard, and it has far fewer studios putting out movies in the format. On top of that, it requires Microsoft software on every box. I'm no great Sony fan, but Bluray seems like the better format from a technical and a practical perspective (more studios backing it). With Blockbuster video-rental stores signing onto Bluray exclusively now, it seems like the writing is on the wall. So why does this war need to be protracted indefinitely? It sucks for consumers.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Too little, too late
by shepherdr on Sat 23rd Jun 2007 08:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Too little, too late"
shepherdr Member since:
2006-01-19

If you don't know which format to support - buy both - anyone seriously considering moving to HD should be able to afford both ;)
I have this player (which is the E2 in europe rather than A2) and a PS3. Both look fantastic on my 52" 1080i Panasonic plasma. I cannot detect ANY shearing artifacts or other anomalies to remind me this is interlaced rather than progressive. If you have a good de-interlacer (the Panasonic does) then don't sweat about 1080p. Also don't bother with HD at all unless your screen is 40" or more or you use a projector. Quality perception depends upon screen size and viewing distance from the screen and the size/quality curves of SDvsHD don't separate for most people until 40" at reasonable viewing distances. This is for PAL at any rate which is 576 lines - can't comment on 480 line NTSC.
I usually buy the HDDVD disks (except those from Sony which I have to buy in Blu-Ray) because I don't want to unduly stress the PS3's drive - I want this to last longer than the life expectancy of the HDDVD drive which I'll more than likely replace with a player that will play either disk format in a couple of years. The HDDVD/BluRay competition seems likely to end in an equivalent of the DVD+R-R debacle as I see it.

Edited 2007-06-23 08:41

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Too little, too late
by Moochman on Sat 23rd Jun 2007 08:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Too little, too late"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

Ending in the equivalent of the DVD+R/-R debacle is exactly the kind of outcome I think we should be trying to avoid. The fact that to this day I cannot buy a recordable DVD and know that it will be usable in any computer or DVD player I stick it in is quite simply a travesty, even more so when one reflects on the unwashed millions who, unlike me, have not the slightest inkling of a clue what the difference between + and - is and are that much more confounded when things don't "just work".

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Too little, too late
by bolomkxxviii on Sat 23rd Jun 2007 08:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Too little, too late"
bolomkxxviii Member since:
2006-05-19

"What personal reasons could you have for wanting HD-DVD to win? Hatred of Sony?"

I do not have a hatred of Sony, I just choose to not support them. I have had enough with Betamax, minidisc, rootkits, memory stick, and now blu-ray. There are too many "standards" which hurts everyone. While I would agree that Blu-ray may be technically superior, it is much more expensive to produce Blu-ray discs. It does not cost much to update a DVD plant to make HD-DVD discs. Blu-ray requires complete re-fit. Sony makes quality gear, but they keep trying to lock everyone into one of their formats. It does not matter if you like them or not, we all pay for their attempts to lock in the consumers. Yes, other companies do the same thing, but Sony is more aggressive than most. If you ever were infected by their CD rootkit you would understand.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Too little, too late
by zetsurin on Sat 23rd Jun 2007 12:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Too little, too late"
zetsurin Member since:
2006-06-13

"I do not have a hatred of Sony, I just choose to not support them. I have had enough with Betamax, minidisc, rootkits, memory stick, and now blu-ray. There are too many "standards" which hurts everyone."

Oh, I suppose you would prefer to stick with open standards like 'CompactFlash (types 1 and 2), Smart Media, MultiMediaCard, xD-Picture Card (Type M and H), SD Card, SDHC, MicroDrive, miniSD, RS MMC), DVD+R, DVD-R, and the list of 'standards' elsewhere about the industry could go on and on.

So yeah, avoiding Sony will really clean up this situation, right?

I think blu-ray is more the standard format as it's by and large utilising MPEG4-AVC (not some hack of the standard, not some MS-licensed 'VC-1' 'standard) and Java.

As for this rootkit issue that really never seems to die, I suggest you look into the home calling that Windows has been doing.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Too little, too late
by Moochman on Sat 23rd Jun 2007 15:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Too little, too late"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

I hear you about Sony's practices, but this is not like those Sony-only formats that you mention because it is backed by a multitude of HW manufacturers including Apple, HP, Samsung, Hitachi, Philips and Panasonic. That's covers almost all of the major consumer electronics manufacturers, who for once, finally (unlike with the DVD+-R debacle) were able to join up and agree on something, only Toshiba and NEC had to step in and f*@! everything up. And of course most of the studios support Bluray too. So I ask you, not why you don't want to support Sony, but why you would continue to insist that Toshiba et al keep fighting this battle against an incredibly well-supported format, even though the consumers are the big losers in the case of a protracted battle.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Too little, too late
by shepherdr on Sat 23rd Jun 2007 19:35 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Too little, too late"
shepherdr Member since:
2006-01-19

The CD/DVD+-R problem isn't too bad a solution for HD video. This isn't VHS vs Betamax. In that situation the player and content were inextricably linked. If you bought beta films then you had to buy them again when VHS "won" because the physical media was incompatible with the other format. This is not the case for HDDVD and Blu-ray. I bet anything that the default player in 2-3 years will play both HD-DVD and Blu-ray - just like the LG does today and like all CD/DVD drives today spin both + and - R formats. Today if you buy in to HDDVD and Blu-ray wins (or vice versa) the content war then your investments in the discs will not be wasted - just buy a dual format player when you reach the threshold of not getting the films you want in your original format choice.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Too little, too late
by Moochman on Sun 24th Jun 2007 05:24 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Too little, too late"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

How much the consumer is inconvenienced really depends on how long this thing is drawn out. In the case of DVD+/-R, the consumer was unquestionably inconvenienced, because for at least 2-3 years manufacturers were only supporting one standard or the other, leading to the situation today that any computer or DVD player NOT produced in the past 4-5 years is NOT guaranteed to play any DVD that you stick in it, and likewise any computer that's a bit older may have compatibility issues. At least with VHS/Betamax it was easy to see that one thing wouldn't fit in the other one; with the DVD+/-R debacle the consumer has no idea what went wrong. I know it's easy to gloss over it and say, "oh, they can buy new players, and they can upgrade their optical drives" but most people don't really know to do this nor do they have the incentive, and many laptop optical drives are not upgradeable or prohibitively expensive to do so. End situation: a massive quantity of incompatible hardware that to this day is still in millions of homes, and a consumer population that gets to be frustrated over and over again because for some reason they can't burn to the DVDs they just bought or if they were able to burn them, they can't view them on their living room player. I say this from personal experience, because I've encountered incompatibilities with players and burners about 60% of all times that I've ever tried to burn DVDs, and even then when I get everything working for me, I can't give other people my burned DVD and know that they will be able to view it.

The whole idea of designing a recordable standard into the next-definition formats was supposed to avoid what happened with DVD+/-R. But now we're getting to see the same sad story replayed after all. That's why I say, fine if they want to make dual-format players, but I just want a winner to be declared soon so that the consumer doesn't have to deal with the kind of multiple-standards headaches that the DVD+/-R/RAM formats brought about.

Edited 2007-06-24 05:35

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Too little, too late
by shepherdr on Sun 24th Jun 2007 08:26 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Too little, too late"
shepherdr Member since:
2006-01-19

Moochman is correct that the current situation inconveniences consumers and I agree a clear winner is desirable. I also agree that the CD+-R issue was bothersome for a year or so BUT in reality as I said before I can only foresee the HD situation being resolved with dual-format (infact quad format - they also play CDs and DVDs!) players in at least the medium term. Neither format is technically superior for playing HD. Some will cite the larger capacity of Blu-ray but I don't see this as being a real issue. Both formats can store a 3+ hour movie in 1080p with lossless audio formats and that's all I want from a player!

Reply Score: 1

Question on 1080p/i
by pxa270 on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 10:46 UTC
pxa270
Member since:
2006-01-08

1080i is at 50 or 60 interlaced fields per second, correct? Sticking with 50hz PAL for the moment, if the source material is only 25fps, wouldn't 1080i@50hz be just as good as 1080p@25hz (or even @50hz, since it just doubles the same frame)? That is, the interlaced case scans the odd and even lines of the 25fps source at 50hz and the TV can recombine them perfectly.

Now since the vast majority of films are shot at 24 fps, does that mean that 1080i@50hz would be just as good as 1080p@25/50hz (ignoring the 4% speedup of playing 24fps source @25fps)? I can see how 1080p would be better if the source was shot at HD 50 or 60 fps, like some HD TV and sports content, but for films it shouldn't matter right?

I know things get a bit more complicated at 30/60 fps with 3:2 pulldown and whatnot, but did I get the basics correct?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Question on 1080p/i
by Eugenia on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 10:55 UTC in reply to "Question on 1080p/i "
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

I don't think so, "March of the Penguins" still felt interlaced in some shots and it was shot at 24 fps, progressive. For example, when there was a lot of white snow, I could see the picture "trembling" a little bit. Not much, but enough to realize that this was still interlaced.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Question on 1080p/i
by pxa270 on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 11:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Question on 1080p/i "
pxa270 Member since:
2006-01-08

Maybe the player or your TV has a bad deinterlacer? I guess my question is really, if you have 24fps source, would you theoretically get identical results between 1080i@48hz and 1080p@24hz if the interlacing and deinterlacing are done properly?

edit: A comment on the March of the Penguin observation. If you notice things are wrong on still pictures I think it's a bad deinterlacer. As I understand it, interlacing artifacts should only show in moving scenes.

Edited 2007-06-22 11:22

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Question on 1080p/i
by Ookaze on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 14:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Question on 1080p/i "
Ookaze Member since:
2005-11-14

if you have 24fps source, would you theoretically get identical results between 1080i@48hz and 1080p@24hz if the interlacing and deinterlacing are done properly

No!
Anyway, that doesn't make sense.
Because your source is progressive, OK. But your display, unless it's a CRT, is progrssive too.
So, when you're talking 1080i@48, the only scenario I can see is broadcast. And you can be assured you won't have broadcast material at 1080i@48, which I'm not even sure is an official HD format.
And even if it was theoretically possible, it wouldn't make sense at all, as it would be worse than the 1080p@24 broadcast, with the 1080p@24 taking less bandwidth.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Question on 1080p/i
by Ookaze on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 14:29 UTC in reply to "Question on 1080p/i "
Ookaze Member since:
2005-11-14

Sticking with 50hz PAL for the moment, if the source material is only 25fps, wouldn't 1080i@50hz be just as good as 1080p@25hz

No! BTW, you have to be very precise about what you're talking about: the source (obviously not here), the broadcast signal or the final result.
To keep things short, basically, as the signal has to be compressed to be carried, an interlaced signal is worse than a progrssive one. Hence why some people don't see much difference between a 720p and a 1080i broadcast, even on a 1080p display.

the interlaced case scans the odd and even lines of the 25fps source at 50hz and the TV can recombine them perfectly

No! This is your problem BTW. No TV can recombine an interlaced source perfectly as you say. Besides, as you describe it, your source is still progressive, so it being broadcasted as interlaced is pure nonsense.
But even if it would happen, it would be better off being broadcasted at 1080p, as it would compress better.


Now since the vast majority of films are shot at 24 fps, does that mean that 1080i@50hz would be just as good as 1080p@25/50hz

No! Like I said before, that's caused by the space/time based algorithms used in the MPEG4 streams. They work better on progressive frames than on interlaced ones.

I can see how 1080p would be better if the source was shot at HD 50 or 60 fps, like some HD TV and sports content, but for films it shouldn't matter right?

No! It will matter even more for films.

I know things get a bit more complicated at 30/60 fps with 3:2 pulldown and whatnot, but did I get the basics correct?

Not at all!
The ultimate goal is 24 fps (or 48, 72 Hz) HDTV, and only a few, expensive ones can do that for now.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Question on 1080p/i
by pxa270 on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 18:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Question on 1080p/i "
pxa270 Member since:
2006-01-08

Well, I'm not talking about broadcast at all, I'm mainly concerned with films, and storing them on HDDVD/Bluray/hard disk. Do I understand correctly that the main problem with interlacing films is the compression? Because if you have uncompressed 1920x1080@24fps content (yes, I know that's hard to come by unless you're a studio, but bear with me), and for every frame you scan both the odd and even lines, you have 1080i at 48hz, and you can recombine the original perfectly from that, right? Well, maybe some/most TVs can't, but a computer should certainly be able to.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Question on 1080p/i
by Ookaze on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 21:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Question on 1080p/i "
Ookaze Member since:
2005-11-14

You know, even old films are not stored in interlaced mode, they are stored in progressive. Interlaced is just an old trick to allow greater resolution with less bandwidth.
Interlacing is not good for quality, and HD is all about quality. Interlaced is not even in the recommendations for broadcasting, that's 1080p, and 720p if bandwidth is not enough. But unscrupulous broadcasters (meaning nearly every one of them) output 1080i, so they can say they broadcast full HD, without allocating the bandwidth necessary for that.

What I don't understand, is why you absolutely want to display your progressive material in interlaced, on displays that most likely will be progressive. That makes no sense at all.

Interlaced material are TV shows, or or some telefilm series, and they are not progressive at the source, so that makes sense they are broadcasted as 1080i, but when the source is progressive, that makes no sense to make it progressive, compress it, then decompress it and recombine it into progressive material. The result will be worse with more work.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Question on 1080p/i
by avih on Sat 23rd Jun 2007 01:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Question on 1080p/i "
avih Member since:
2006-03-16

Man, you are wrong, and misleading with buzzwords, while pxa270 got it right.

Putting the compression aside and looking at the amount of data passed over the medium (i.e. air broadcast without compression) then 1080p@25 frames per sec is identical in the amount of data passed to 1080i (50 fields/sec) both theoreticaly and practically.

So it's only a matter of the display to make good use of it. Old CRT TV sets would display it interlaced such that 2 consecutive fields which compose an original film frame (assuming broadcast is synchronized and 2 fields of the same original frame are also broadcasted within the same frame) would be displayed one after the other in a 50Hz fasion (CRT TV set is interlaced only by nature), while a computer player (or an LCD/Plazma screen) CAN display it progressive since the display itself is progressive in nature.

Whether or not it will combine the fields into a single progressive frame or display the fields one after the other is derived from the amount of "intelligence" the display has in it's deinterlacing algorithms, and whether it can recognize that due to the lack of the comb effect, this interlaced material should be displayed progressive (DSCALER/Deinterlace TV player on sourceforge has such algorithms).

If we add compression to the mix, then MPEG2/4 algorithms are very capable in handling interlaced sources. It's true however that compressing "interlaced" signal while the source is actually progressive, does reduce the effectiveness of the compression when compared to compressing the same source as progressive. The practical loss of quality however, while keeping the same data bandwidth, is negligible, and in any case, the data rate can be increased slightly to compensate for that loss of quality.

So the bottom line is: As long as the player ("signal creator") is capable of playing 1080i, it's capable of playing film in 1080p fashion. It cannot, however, play "true" 1080p@50fps, but that's out of the scope of the original question, and not interesting while playing films.

The question that remains is: can the display interpret correctly and NOT deinterlace the signal while displaying it. That's only a matter of algorithms/modes of the display itself.

So if the player is capable of playing film at 1080p, why is it limited for playing "true" 1080p@50Hz? And the answer is player CPU. 1080p@50Hz has twice the output data bandwidth of film 1080p. It requires faster memory and stronger CPU. That costs more money, as simple as that.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Question on 1080p/i
by Eugenia on Sat 23rd Jun 2007 01:30 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Question on 1080p/i "
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

Yup. The reviewed product is very similar electronically to the more expensive model, but without the "special" CPU that can do 1080p (it's called Reon or Neon chip, or something like that).

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Question on 1080p/i
by Ookaze on Sun 24th Jun 2007 08:24 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Question on 1080p/i "
Ookaze Member since:
2005-11-14

Putting the compression aside and looking at the amount of data passed over the medium (i.e. air broadcast without compression) then 1080p@25 frames per sec is identical in the amount of data passed to 1080i (50 fields/sec) both theoreticaly and practically

Your problem is in "putting the compression aside"...
But you know that.
So practically AND theoretically, you are wrong, as that's the compressed content that travels (or is even on the disc), not the uncompressed one.
The worst part is not that, as you are aware of the difference, it's that:

The practical loss of quality however, while keeping the same data bandwidth, is negligible, and in any case, the data rate can be increased slightly to compensate for that loss of quality

That's the problem, right here.
Be it broadcast of HDMI cables, the bandwidth is limited. And unfortunately, practical evidence tell us that the limited bandwidth IS VISIBLE even on BluRay or HDDVD, as lots of people already reported seeing the bad quality in HD media (mainly BluRay AFAIK), them being merely badly compressed.
So the practical loss of quality involved in putting progressive source in interlaced form on the media IS noticeable, and the bandwidth CAN'T be always increased.
But like I asked before already, what is the point in putting your progressive source in interlaced form on a HD media?
That doesn't make sense, as we agree it's worse in EVERY cases.
The player can output 1080p at 1080i, so there's no point in storing the 1080p material as 1080i on the disc: that has no advantage at all. Wasn't that the first question asked?

And you're, uh, wrong, a player that can display 1080i isn't necessarily capable of displaying 1080p, like you showed with your 1080p@50 versus 1080p@24 example.
But it's worse than that actually, because unlike common knowledge would tell you, a display or player that can output 1080p@50 (or @60) can't necessarily output 1080p@24. And I know that from first hand practical evidence.

I agree with all the rest.

Reply Score: 2

I Have To agree. Blu-ray Has Won
by Simba on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 10:49 UTC
Simba
Member since:
2005-10-08

I have to agree. Nothing is going to stop the tide of Blu-ray. Blockbuster's announcement that it will only stock Blu-ray disks at the vast majority of its stores was a devastating blow to HD-DVD. And possibly the last one it can take.

Blu-ray just has too much momentum, and far more industry support than HD-DVD.

Reply Score: 5

Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

I don't disagree with that, but I really, really, hate region-coding (HD-DVD is region-free). Having purchased over 170 DVDs in the last few years, and with the prospect of returning to Europe some day, is going to suck. Buying a "region-free DVD" does not make my pain go away because it's not easily replaceable if it dies, and with time, region-free DVDs will be hard to find. And after the laws that try to remove more freedoms from us, this is 170 DVDs that will go to the bin.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2148802,00.asp

Personally, I hate region-coding more than other types of DRM.

Reply Score: 1

Ookaze Member since:
2005-11-14

I hate region coding too.
But I don't understand your whining, really.
What do you mean "not easily replaceable"?
I live in Europe, where it's very easy to buy a good DVD unit which is region-free. Yet, I bought an Oppo (one of the best units quality wise for bad DVD) in the USA from Europe, a DVD player which is region-free, 110-220 V compatible, upscales and deinterlace DVDs up to 1080p (and doing a better job at it than most HDTV or all other DVD units at his price), and cost about the same as this HD player. Better quality DVD players start at 4 times its price!
You should have known about this.
As long as they're selling DVD players, you won't have any problem keeping your 170 DVD collection. I sure enough won't sell mine.
I hate Sony and region-coding, but it seems like people won't have much choice than to go with BluRay.

Reply Score: 4

Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

I think Eugenia was talking about buying "region free" DVD discs rather than players. But you have an excellent point--just buy a region free player and be done with it. In Europe such players are very easy to find. In America unfortunately less so.

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"Blockbuster's announcement"

Who's Blockbuster...?

Reply Score: 1

Governa Member since:
2006-04-09

QUOTING Soulbender:

"Who's Blockbuster...?"

I've noticed you are from Philippines so you might not be familiar with Blockbuster.

Blockbuster is one of the largest chain of DVD and video game rental stores in the world. It is present in over thirty countries, including the United States, Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Uruguay, Ireland, Puerto Rico, UK, Portugal, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Brazil, Chile, Taiwan, Italy, Denmark, Colombia, etc.

More info here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbuster_%28video_store%29

Recently Blockbuster announced it will rent high-definition DVDs only in the Blu-ray format.

Blockbuster has been renting both Blu-ray and HD DVD titles since late last year and found that consumers were choosing Blu-ray titles more than 70 percent of the time.

Apparently the decision was helped in large part by the lopsided availability of titles in Blu-ray. All major studios except one are releasing films in Blu-ray, with several, including The Walt Disney Co., releasing exclusively in Blu-ray. Only Universal Studios, which is owned by General Electric Co., exclusively supports HD DVD.

More info here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,283774,00.html

And since this is a OS News website some of you might be interested to know Microsoft officially supports the HD-DVD format while Apple decided to support the Blu-ray format.

Edited 2007-06-22 14:45

Reply Score: 3

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"I've noticed you are from Philippines so you might not be familiar with Blockbuster."

I'm very well of what Blockbuster is and they even have a presence here. Well, if you can call a handfull of stores a presence. I was being sarcastic.
What Blockbuster support or do not support does not really matter for anyone outside the U.S and while Blockbuster may be present in many countries that does in no way mean they're important in those countries.

Reply Score: 2

I wish one would win
by bsharitt on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 11:17 UTC
bsharitt
Member since:
2005-07-07

I just wish one side would win, and at this point I don't care which. Right now, HD-DVD seems to have the edge in at least more and cheaper hardware, while Blu-Ray seems to be winning the content battle. I'm afraid this will go on well into 2008, if not longer, and the winner will probably be the "universal" players that play both formats.

Reply Score: 3

Bad choice of title
by Matzon on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 11:39 UTC
Matzon
Member since:
2005-07-06

March of the penguins is a bad title to test since it contains a lot of SD materieal in it.

Usually you'd want to play 1080p@24 fps, since thats what its captured in, however you display and player has to support this, else you'd get stuttering in panoramic scenes (due to the pulldown).

Reply Score: 1

RE: Bad choice of title
by Eugenia on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 19:42 UTC in reply to "Bad choice of title"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

What SD material? All of it was shot in HD. What are you talking about? About the documentaries?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Bad choice of title
by Matzon on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 20:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Bad choice of title"
Matzon Member since:
2005-07-06

No, there are scenes in the movie that are upscaled standard definition.
Get a copy of BBC's Planet Earth and be impressed. Now *that* is good quality!

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Bad choice of title
by Eugenia on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 20:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Bad choice of title"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

I know about Planet Earth and I have blogged about it in the past (although the second episode has major problems from what I hear because the helicopter interfered with the camera during shooting). However, we have decided to buy Planet Earth only when we get a 1080p TV.

Children of Men looked good btw.

Edited 2007-06-22 20:58

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Bad choice of title
by Matzon on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 21:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Bad choice of title"
Matzon Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah CoM is pretty nice - story too ;)

I just checked up on March of the Penguins, and particularly the underwater scenes at around 32 and 34 minutes are very unsharp and suffer from bad interlacing.
This is on a 50" 720p display.

Having just seen Bobby which mixes SD and HD, you really appreciate a good transfer to HD. Ofcourse working in the artic does pose some lighting issues ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Bad choice of title
by Eugenia on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 21:09 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Bad choice of title"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

That's underwater by a custom, home-made camera... But that was like, what, 3 minutes of footage? It doesn't really matter for testing. Plus you could easily understand that the camera was different there, there was no room for mistaken that for HD. The rest of the movie was in HD. So saying that March of the PEnguins was not a good choice of title just because of these 3 minutes of underwater footage, it's overreacting, at best.

Edited 2007-06-22 21:11

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Bad choice of title
by Matzon on Sat 23rd Jun 2007 06:58 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Bad choice of title"
Matzon Member since:
2005-07-06

There are other parts that are SD too. You might not mind it, but I did. It served no purpose to show SD material in the movie, other than they didn't have a HD camera available. Cheap budget :p
It does however make sense to show SD content in a movie like Bobby, since its archival footage.

Generally, this wouldn't be the movie I would throw on to impress friends. You can however make great HD nature movies, witness BBC.

Reply Score: 1

Approve
by yahso on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 12:30 UTC
yahso
Member since:
2006-07-28

I approve of this review, I have the HD-A2 and It's simply AWESOME.

Reply Score: 1

whats blockbuster
by cchance on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 15:02 UTC
cchance
Member since:
2006-02-24

i think we all know "what blockbuster is"

the fact is as universal movies said, they are not concerned with it because in reality blockbuster rentals accounted for less than 1% of current income from HDDVD... and on top of that Blockbuster will still offer the movies on their website...

Blockbuster not carrying it instore is a moot point who the hell still goes to blockbuster anyway? Especially when netflix does hddvd rentals?

Blockbuster was important years and years ago, now not so much....

A killer blow to bluray or hddvd would be say... walmart or amazon dropping them... which wont be happening...

I hate to burst peoples bubble, but joe shmoe and mary smith that juts got their plasma will look and see...

"HIGH DEFINITION MOVIES"
Bluray 500$ player .... HDDVD 230$ Player...

and guess which one their gonna buy? the hddvd, hell they might buy 2 one for their bedroom too.

Reply Score: 1

RE: whats blockbuster
by Matzon on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 15:31 UTC in reply to "whats blockbuster"
Matzon Member since:
2005-07-06

"and guess which one their gonna buy? the hddvd, hell they might buy 2 one for their bedroom too."
I'd buy the bluray - it's better imo. especially profile 1.1
People buying expensive FullHD screens can typically afford the 250$ difference.
And the reason why they will buy the more expensive one, is because there are more bluray titles, and its the "thing" they have at blockbuster.

some people at bluockbuster call them PS3 movies ;D

btw, sales this week from a danish store:
BLU-RAY: 89% HD-DVD: 11%
ouch.

Edited 2007-06-22 15:35

Reply Score: 3

RE: whats blockbuster
by Ookaze on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 15:41 UTC in reply to "whats blockbuster"
Ookaze Member since:
2005-11-14

I have to concur with BSDfan here.
What you say is pure nonsense.
The HD DVD player presented here comes with ... COMPOSITE, for christ sake!
So Joe Shmoe and Mary Smith, that just got their plasma, will look and see ... "DVD MOVIES IN HIGH DEFINITION" plastered on the progressive scan/upscaling DVD players, at $100, or even $50. And guess which they're gonna buy, with your BluRay $500 (BTW, they are already at $320+, not $500) and your $230 HD DVD player?
Especially when they have these DVD already?
Yes, they'll go DVD player, and that's if the one they have already can't be connected to their new TV (through composite, ouch!).

Most Joe Shmoe and Mary Smith are still looking at SD content on their HDTV, are still using factory calibrated settings (god awful settings made to catch people eyes in stores, completely inappropriate for regular viewing), are still hooking up their sources through composite, and it looks worse than before, and they wonder what this HD thing is all about.
But they're not disappointed, as most of the time, they buy HDTV because they're slim or can be mounted on a wall (hype), and that's all.

Reply Score: 5

RE: whats blockbuster
by JonathanBThompson on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 21:17 UTC in reply to "whats blockbuster"
JonathanBThompson Member since:
2006-05-26

Two Words: Instant Gratification.

Not everyone has the same personality traits that make mailing movies back and forth something that works for their viewing habits, so NetFlix, however good it may be, simply doesn't take care of the spur-of-the-moment renter's needs/desires. After a rather frustrating day, for example, I may be far more in a mood for something that has a high body count and lots of gore to work out my aggressions, or perhaps something else, who knows? I certainly can't predict that far in advance what my moods will be, and whether or not I just might have company over who might enjoy a show.

I am not one that's likely to ever buy a movie I've not seen before, either in the theatre, or as a rental, and I'd be surprised if I'm unique in that.

As of yet, at least in the US and there are other places, download speed and reliability isn't up to par to have people watch any given available movie at any time on a whim without going out and getting a dead-polycarbonate copy first.

Thus, what Blockbuster and other brick-and-mortar stores stock makes a potentially huge difference in at least many of the larger markets, and determines whether or not people would be as likely to buy this HD-DVD player or a Blu-Ray player, because buying hardware that only works with media that you don't have readily available just doesn't make much sense in practice.

And yes, from 92-96 I worked at one of Sony's disc production plants, where they produced (at the time) CD-ROMs, audio CDs, Laser discs, mini-discs, and were starting on the process of converting over to producing DVDs as of the time I left. I even had a minidisc ROM drive on my desk at work, but... nothing to use it with, at the manufacturing plant for the mass-produced media!

Reply Score: 2

RE: whats blockbuster
by Moochman on Sat 23rd Jun 2007 08:40 UTC in reply to "whats blockbuster"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

More than half of the population still gets their movies via traditional video rental, and for people over the age of 50 I doubt this will change much. Blockbuster is still incredibly relevant.

Reply Score: 2

HDDVD & Blu-Ray == DRM Garbage..
by BSDfan on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 15:29 UTC
BSDfan
Member since:
2007-03-14

Really, This entire Blu-Ray/HDDVD junk is complete nonsense, DVD's only became mainstream like ~5 years ago?

Please.. Who really "needs" HDDVD or Blu-Ray, With the DRM technology these devices make use of, You'll likely have to purchase a new player every few years if you want to watch newer movies.

Don't buy into the DRM nonsense that calls itself Blu-ray & HDDVD.

http://bluraysucks.com/

Reply Score: 2

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Don't buy into the DRM nonsense that calls itself Blu-ray & HDDVD.

There's a term for people like you: Luddite. Whether you like it or not, DRM is here to stay. The average person has no idea what DRM is -- and doesn't care at all. DRM hasn't hindered the explosive growth of DRM'd formats such as DVD. So, really, begging people to ignore the new formats is a doomed effort. The people that produce content want to get paid, and time marches on. Everything in life isn't free. Deal with it.

Reply Score: 2

I'd like Blu-Ray disks..
by vondur on Fri 22nd Jun 2007 16:03 UTC
vondur
Member since:
2005-07-07

When they come down in price. A dual layer disk that can hold 50GB sounds pretty cool. I just bought at 720P LCD tv a month ago and would like to see some high def stuff on it, but not until the players come down below $200US.

Reply Score: 2

Not willing to go with either one ...
by WorknMan on Sat 23rd Jun 2007 02:01 UTC
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

Until a winner is declared. And even then, DVD still ain't looking that bad ;)

Reply Score: 2

1080p televisions still very expensive
by bousozoku on Sat 23rd Jun 2007 17:37 UTC
bousozoku
Member since:
2006-01-23

I'm all for the best resolution you can get but 1080p is still too pricey for most people here. Most people will likely settle for 720p sets that accept 1080i input because such an LCD t.v. will run about $1000.

It's great that HD video sources are getting cheaper but until both HD DVD and Blu-Ray Disc run on the same machine at a reasonable price, I don't see either winning. I got my Pioneer multi-disc (laserdisc/CD/DVD) player in 1997 and it was $1000 retail, which was way too much but at least, the laserdisc player that was replaced was about the same price.

When a dual format player hits $500, they'll become popular, even without 1080p output. How long? I figure they'll become available about the time 1080p sets hit the $1000 mark.

Reply Score: 1