One important difference between the VHS-to-DVD and the DVD-to-HDDVD transitions: DVD brought film collecting to the masses, so now there are a lot of people with sizeable film collections. This was not the case with VHS, which was more of a rental medium. Most people purchase DVDs of films they like at or close to MSRP, and they buy budget titles on impulse. They've invested a lot of money into this medium. Why would they repurchase those films? If a lot of the hardcore film devotees on this forum are hesitant to do it, why would the mainstream? I am certain that this is a concern for the industry, even as they swim in the profits of mainstream DVD saturation.

Of course, the time between them being the only TVs being available for purchase and those TVs being in the majority of homes can potentially be quite a long time. I don't replace televisions very often. I've had my current ones for seven years now, and the one before that I had for nearly 20 years.

It's unlikely the switch to HD will require leaving the millions of households who don't then have HD televisions without television signal altogether. So, it's not altogether unlikely that it could be well over a decade or more after the switchover before HDTV is actually ubiquitous.

Exactly, why rush things and kill the golden goose? They have a vested interest in seeing DVD transition to HD-DVD gradually rather than quickly. Otherwise, you get J6P's saying "Why should I upgrade to this new HD thing and then have that rug pulled out from under me by some other better format 5-7 years later?" You create a market paranoia by doing that.

Actually, VHS ended up usurping Beta, and Beta was the one with the superior A/V quality. That's more of an example of how functionality can often win out over total quality in the mass market.

This is what I think Studios are going to do eventually. I'm glad I finally read someone else say it in an article because I was not sure if it would be a viable marketing idea.

"Doherty suggests that a year from now consumers may find ``Shrek III'' in the movie store with HD on one side of the disc and standard DVD on the other."

Link

uhm....yeah, that was my point.

Considering that Shrek 2 just came out, and the next installment is at least a couple of years away, I would assume that Dreamworks' lawyers would like to talk to whoever is going to put out this disc. :)

Nope. Continue as normal.

$650 is a lot of money to many people, especially when one can get a SDTV for much less. Still, your point is well taken; HD ready TVs have been dropping in price rapidly and even Wal-mart is now pushing them.

Quote:

---

HD-TV programming is still scarce, but the premium movie channels, major networks, and "specialty channels" like ESPN, HD-Discovery Theater, HD-Movie Net, etc., are already out there and accessible via digital cable, satellite, and over-the-air broadcast. The federal government has mandated a full switch to HD broadcasting in the near future (and I can't remember the date).

---

Not necessarily. The date is 2006 and may be slipped again because of the slow progress of TV stations making the transition. Also, the switchover date is for Digital TV, not High Definition. TV stations can broadcast one HDTV program or numerous SD programs on the same bandwidth. Which do you think will make them more money? There was some talk of Congress requiring a certain percentage of HDTV programming, but nothing came of it so far as I have heard.

Quote:

---

So, alot of you who don't think you'll be experiencing HD anytime soon probably will be surprised to find that you likely will be, and much sooner than you think...

---

In my case I get TV over the air (and only two channels at that). With analog signals I get a less than perfect but watchable program. With digital broadcasting one either gets the signal intact or not at all. Chances are that I will get no signal at all. Digital broadcasting won't be available to everyone unless they are willing to go the "pay TV" route (cable or satellite), as you did.

Someone mentioned they doubted that something like The Wizard of Oz would look much better in HD than DVD. WB is airing it in HD on 12/19 and I'd reckon it will look a good deal better even given that it will not be shown in 1080p and likely will be compressed more than it will in the next generation formats on whatever channel one watches it. If someone were to take a screenshot of it and compare it to one from the DVD at 45"+ the difference is very "clear".

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Richard Malloy
[B]Maybe so, except...

It won't be very long before the only new TVs available for purchase will be HD-capable. Even today, I cannot fathom why anyone would purchase a TV that isn't. (You can get a 32" HD-tv from Walmart for $650, and an even better price if you know what and where to look.)

Because not everyone has $650 to throw around and when they walk in a store and see 27 inch flatscreen sets for well under $300, in some cases under $200, they take what they can afford. We use the phrase Joe Six Pack here from time to time and some here take affront to it seeing it as a form of snobbery (which it is). In some cases they are uneducated as to what is a good picture versus a bad picture, and in some cases it's simply not important to them. They still are more numerous than the hardcore videophiles here in the forum and the truth is, they always will be. They have a good sized control over the market and if not for them HDTV probably would have taken off years ago. Laserdisc would have likely fared better if not for the casual user as well. The powers that be aren't giving people enough incentive to force their hand and go buy an HD-tv because the programming is still too sparse, the cable companies and station affiliates are dragging their feet making the change and in general, giving HDTV life at a trickle rather than a steady stream. Say they go buy the $650 set. They still can't watch HDTV because they need to spend some more hundreds for a tuner that makes their set HD decodable. Shoot, a friend of mine just paid $2000 for an 27 inch LCD HDTV.......but can she watch HDTV yet? Nope, she still has more money she needs to spend on an HD tuner in order to do so. Then she'll have to pay more for the programming.....wait, she's still not done, because she now has to buy an HD-DVD player and HD discs in order to enjoy her $2000 HD-tv. They aren't making the change attractive to the consumer......you buy an HDTV but it's not necessarily a TV you can just take home and watch HD programming on.
It's still about pricing and availability and that will be something of the case when HD-DVD hits the street. Yeah, I think it's going to either replace DVD altogether or they will subsist on the market for several years to come- hell, we ain't killed VHS yet, scarily enough they may all THREE be out there in tandem for awhile.

And who's to say that paranoia wouldn't be justified?

Its probably that some of the studios will bring some of their big movies in HD-DVD first to stir up a strong public demand.

Dreamworks, Paramount, Universal, Warner and NewLine are supporting the HD-DVD format.

I think that Disney is backing the Blue Ray format.

If NewLine brings out the Lord of the Rings Trilogy on HD-DVD soon, it could turn many heads.

I'm not gonna re-buy the James Bond Collection when it's superb on DVD. That's my philosophy on the matter. :)

I agree 100%. The A/V quality was only a small reason I got into DVD. It was all the other features that turned me on to the format. I just really don't care much about audio or video quality.

DVD is more than good enough for me. I might upgrade a few titles like Star Wars and LOTR when I get an HDTV (no hurry here).

But otherwise, I'll stick with my DVDs. Movies are just as entertaining for me in a lower resolution.

While there are TVs to be bought at low prices, we all need to notice one thing when we go to WalMart:

They are marketing the hell out of HDTV. If that is not a sign that these sets are saturating the mainstream, I don't know what is.

For those that aren't interested in the higher resolution of the next generation format then why go HDTV at all or atleast until one is pretty much forced to which won't be for many years?

I'm not planning on buying one anytime soon.

Not until my 27" Wega craps out and/or I get out of apartment living and have room (and $$$) for a big screen.

Either that or they bought far more than people were willing to buy so they have to market the hell out of them in an attempt to get them out of the store.

I have a dream.

Maybe this time around - unlike the step up from laserdiscs to DVDs - the studios could offer us an upgrade program?! We ship our DVDs in and for a certain fee, let's say $10, we receive the new HD version.

Having to sell all DVDs via eBay just seems like so much work.

Yeah, nice Technicolor films like The Wizard of Oz or Gone with the Wind (both visual feasts to boot) have room for improvement in HD assuming the print is in good condition and the transfer is done properly. On the other hand, films like The Battleship Potemkin or Birth of a Nation aren't going to get a whole lot better. And for that matter a movie like Casablanca wouldn't be that exciting an HD acquisition either. HD is really a medium for newer films, and old classics with beautiful technicolor prints, or outstanding visuals (like epics).

I'm not trying to say that it isn't. I'm just pointing out that it's in their best interest both in terms of profit maximization and consumer satisfaction not to allow such a panic to pervade the market (which rushing forward with HD-DVD with both guns blazing would likely do). The advantage is to introduce it gradually and grow the market slowly while doing everything possible to assure DVD owners that their investments are safe and don't have to go out the window because of the advent of this - that HD-DVD is merely an upgrade/improvement of an existing format and not a complete format replacement. My guess is that when HD-DVD finally does hit the shelves (probably this coming year) it will be accompanied by a massive ad campaign aimed at informing customers as to exactly what it is (and debunking any paranoid myths and allaying any potential concerns about its impact on standard DVD).

HA! Didn't even notice that! You get the point though. :)

I'd go further and say that most anything that has the negative in top form or can be restored to it will see the improvement. Just because something is in black and white doesn't discount the extra fine detail, depth, and clarity that can be seen with a greater resolution.

Granted the film stock and other technological advances have improved to allow one to get the most out of 35mm film now in comparison to 50+ years ago but I wouldn't go as far to say one will not be able to experience an immediate improvement from something like Casablanca, Citizen Kane or even The Man Who Wasn't There. I'm sure there is someone reading that has seen a restored 35mm screening of Kane or Casablanca that can yield concrete comparisons that that print offers a good deal more than the DVD not just in screen size.

So, they market the hell out of low carb soft drinks.

Both are selling miserably for Coke and Pepsi.

The whole country has not switched to Michelob Ultra.

There are obviously health advantages so everyone will switch to them right...

Just an example - marketing is just that - marketing. There was intense marketing for NGage - no one bought that.

Look at sales numbers not marketing. Look at market penetration. Look at customer response to marketing. Niche markets can be heavily marketed.