With HD DVD's coming so soon, will companies forgo SE's on DVD?
01-10-05 | 02:12 PM
#51
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,949
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
From: on a river in a kayak..where else?
Originally Posted by bboisvert
Not everyone has the same opinions you do... for example, if you were to interview 100 random people on the street and show them the prices for HDTVs, how may would categorize them as 'inexpensive' (as you are doing)?
And, while I enjoy my HDTV very much, the 'hours and hours of sheer pleasure' is a bit of an overstatement. I think that the first complaint most HDTV adopters have is the lack of quality content available, either via cable or sat. Until more stations start delivering more HD content, and until HD-DVD/Blu-ray becomes a consumer reality, I hardly think you can blame people for sitting on the fence or waiting for prices to drop further.
When I first got my set, I watched nature programs on Discovery HD and PBS-HD for hours. I watched Korean sumo wrestling. Hell, I watched golf. All to see the pretty pictures. And it was impressive. But, after a while, I really starting itching for content that actually interested me. For the most part, I'm still waiting.
HDTV is a great thing. But is isn't worth the cost yet for most people.
(And to answer the original poster's question... No, I don't believe that studios will hold back standard DVD content in favor of HD-DVD. Not for quite a long time -- 5+ years at least. The market for HD-DVD is going to be niche for a loooong time, and they aren't going to jeopardize current revenue in the hopes of encouraging upgrades. They'll get more money by continuing to release in DVD format and letting HD upgrades happen at a natural pace.)
And, while I enjoy my HDTV very much, the 'hours and hours of sheer pleasure' is a bit of an overstatement. I think that the first complaint most HDTV adopters have is the lack of quality content available, either via cable or sat. Until more stations start delivering more HD content, and until HD-DVD/Blu-ray becomes a consumer reality, I hardly think you can blame people for sitting on the fence or waiting for prices to drop further.
When I first got my set, I watched nature programs on Discovery HD and PBS-HD for hours. I watched Korean sumo wrestling. Hell, I watched golf. All to see the pretty pictures. And it was impressive. But, after a while, I really starting itching for content that actually interested me. For the most part, I'm still waiting.
HDTV is a great thing. But is isn't worth the cost yet for most people.
(And to answer the original poster's question... No, I don't believe that studios will hold back standard DVD content in favor of HD-DVD. Not for quite a long time -- 5+ years at least. The market for HD-DVD is going to be niche for a loooong time, and they aren't going to jeopardize current revenue in the hopes of encouraging upgrades. They'll get more money by continuing to release in DVD format and letting HD upgrades happen at a natural pace.)
to every word.
01-10-05 | 02:59 PM
#52
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Kingston, TN
Originally Posted by bboisvert
Not everyone has the same opinions you do... for example, if you were to interview 100 random people on the street and show them the prices for HDTVs, how may would categorize them as 'inexpensive' (as you are doing)?
And, while I enjoy my HDTV very much, the 'hours and hours of sheer pleasure' is a bit of an overstatement. I think that the first complaint most HDTV adopters have is the lack of quality content available, either via cable or sat. Until more stations start delivering more HD content, and until HD-DVD/Blu-ray becomes a consumer reality, I hardly think you can blame people for sitting on the fence or waiting for prices to drop further.
When I first got my set, I watched nature programs on Discovery HD and PBS-HD for hours. I watched Korean sumo wrestling. Hell, I watched golf. All to see the pretty pictures. And it was impressive. But, after a while, I really starting itching for content that actually interested me. For the most part, I'm still waiting.
HDTV is a great thing. But is isn't worth the cost yet for most people.
(And to answer the original poster's question... No, I don't believe that studios will hold back standard DVD content in favor of HD-DVD. Not for quite a long time -- 5+ years at least. The market for HD-DVD is going to be niche for a loooong time, and they aren't going to jeopardize current revenue in the hopes of encouraging upgrades. They'll get more money by continuing to release in DVD format and letting HD upgrades happen at a natural pace.)
And, while I enjoy my HDTV very much, the 'hours and hours of sheer pleasure' is a bit of an overstatement. I think that the first complaint most HDTV adopters have is the lack of quality content available, either via cable or sat. Until more stations start delivering more HD content, and until HD-DVD/Blu-ray becomes a consumer reality, I hardly think you can blame people for sitting on the fence or waiting for prices to drop further.
When I first got my set, I watched nature programs on Discovery HD and PBS-HD for hours. I watched Korean sumo wrestling. Hell, I watched golf. All to see the pretty pictures. And it was impressive. But, after a while, I really starting itching for content that actually interested me. For the most part, I'm still waiting.
HDTV is a great thing. But is isn't worth the cost yet for most people.
(And to answer the original poster's question... No, I don't believe that studios will hold back standard DVD content in favor of HD-DVD. Not for quite a long time -- 5+ years at least. The market for HD-DVD is going to be niche for a loooong time, and they aren't going to jeopardize current revenue in the hopes of encouraging upgrades. They'll get more money by continuing to release in DVD format and letting HD upgrades happen at a natural pace.)
01-10-05 | 04:17 PM
#53
Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by WestEndRiot
$1000 is inexpensive?
You are just making MY CASE. Most people totally undervalue good home entertainment. $1000 for a high quality HDTV set that is probaby going to last 5-10 years is a freakin bargain. What world do you live in? Cars are $20K now, houses are $200K now, HDTVs are far better than any SDTV ever was and $1000 is NOT expensive when you consider it lasts as long as it does and the number of hours of use you get out of it. I am not saying most people agree with me, I know most dont, but the reason they dont is they dont think it through and dont realize the true cost. They are cheap! I spend more than $1000 a year for cable service, but $1000 TOTAL for 5-10 years use of a HDTV is what you call expensive? Thats absurd. Also for someone to spend 5-10 thosand dollars on a massive DVD collection and then play them back on a crappy old SDTV is really stupid too. But there are lot of those fools doing that too. Just because there are alot of people doing something doesnt make them right or smart about it.
01-10-05 | 04:42 PM
#54
Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bboisvert
Not everyone has the same opinions you do... for example, if you were to interview 100 random people on the street and show them the prices for HDTVs, how may would categorize them as 'inexpensive' (as you are doing)?.
are not going to have any idea what value it has and if you dont know the value you cant make a good judgement on the prices can you?
Originally Posted by bboisvert
And, while I enjoy my HDTV very much, the 'hours and hours of sheer pleasure' is a bit of an overstatement. I think that the first complaint most HDTV adopters have is the lack of quality content available, either via cable or sat. Until more stations start delivering more HD content, and until HD-DVD/Blu-ray becomes a consumer reality, I hardly think you can blame people for sitting on the fence or waiting for prices to drop further.)?.
I estimate I could get 5,000-10,000 hours usage out of a single HDTV purchase if I wanted to.
Would 10 cents an hour be what you call expensive????
Originally Posted by bboisvert
When I first got my set, I watched nature programs on Discovery HD and PBS-HD for hours. I watched Korean sumo wrestling. Hell, I watched golf. All to see the pretty pictures. And it was impressive. But, after a while, I really starting itching for content that actually interested me. For the most part, I'm still waiting.
HDTV is a great thing. But is isn't worth the cost yet for most people.
HDTV is a great thing. But is isn't worth the cost yet for most people.
IF you think a $1000 HDTV set isnt "worth it" why didnt you sell your set, discontinue your HDTV service and go back to SDTV? Or did you?
And I would like to add one more thing since this is a DVD forum. Have you ever thought about how much money you save on DVD that you dont have to buy/rent because you can just watch the same movies on HDTV with not the same but BETTER quality than the DVD? That is huge not only is it less expensive than renting/purchasing but it is less hassle. I dont have to go out
and get them, they come to me! I dont care how you slice it, there is no way you are possibly going to convince me that a $1000 HDTV isnt worth the money. It is not only worth it, its a Bargain.
01-10-05 | 08:11 PM
#55
DVD Talk Special Edition
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by hifisapien
What world do you live in? Cars are $20K now, houses are $200K now
01-10-05 | 08:14 PM
#56
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Muncie, IN
Originally Posted by hifisapien
Yes it is! If you consider the number of hours of use you get out of a set per year and how long it lasts the cost of HDTV ownership is dirt cheap. How many people posted here they spent $1000's on DVDs in just one year?
You are just making MY CASE. Most people totally undervalue good home entertainment. $1000 for a high quality HDTV set that is probaby going to last 5-10 years is a freakin bargain. What world do you live in? Cars are $20K now, houses are $200K now, HDTVs are far better than any SDTV ever was and $1000 is NOT expensive when you consider it lasts as long as it does and the number of hours of use you get out of it. I am not saying most people agree with me, I know most dont, but the reason they dont is they dont think it through and dont realize the true cost. They are cheap! I spend more than $1000 a year for cable service, but $1000 TOTAL for 5-10 years use of a HDTV is what you call expensive? Thats absurd. Also for someone to spend 5-10 thosand dollars on a massive DVD collection and then play them back on a crappy old SDTV is really stupid too. But there are lot of those fools doing that too. Just because there are alot of people doing something doesnt make them right or smart about it.
You are just making MY CASE. Most people totally undervalue good home entertainment. $1000 for a high quality HDTV set that is probaby going to last 5-10 years is a freakin bargain. What world do you live in? Cars are $20K now, houses are $200K now, HDTVs are far better than any SDTV ever was and $1000 is NOT expensive when you consider it lasts as long as it does and the number of hours of use you get out of it. I am not saying most people agree with me, I know most dont, but the reason they dont is they dont think it through and dont realize the true cost. They are cheap! I spend more than $1000 a year for cable service, but $1000 TOTAL for 5-10 years use of a HDTV is what you call expensive? Thats absurd. Also for someone to spend 5-10 thosand dollars on a massive DVD collection and then play them back on a crappy old SDTV is really stupid too. But there are lot of those fools doing that too. Just because there are alot of people doing something doesnt make them right or smart about it.
i'm beginning to wonder if you work for Comcast or something and i'm starting to think that you'd make love to that HDTV of yours if it had a proper hole.
again, the affordability of HDTV is relative. just because you can afford it doesn't make it right for everyone. i value entertainment just as much as the next guy but i cannot justify spending $1000 on a television. someday, i'm sure...just not right now. end of story.
i also
bboisvert. good show, chap.
01-10-05 | 10:42 PM
#57
Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by WestEndRiot
again, the affordability of HDTV is relative. just because you can afford it doesn't make it right for everyone. i value entertainment just as much as the next guy but i cannot justify spending $1000 on a television. someday, i'm sure...just not right now. end of story.
where is the "economy" in that? Have you ever bought anything over $1000 in your life like a car or a house? Guess what? It doesnt kill you. You'll survive.
We are not talking a mortgage here, its only a $1000 dollars. This is 2005. $1000 dollars in 2005 is not a lot of money. like I said if you can afford to buy or rent DVDs you can afford $100 a year on a HDTV set purchase. Case not closed.
01-10-05 | 11:03 PM
#58
Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Al_Tahoe
What world do you live in? I couldn't buy an outhouse for 200K where I live. So you see, it really is all relative.
01-10-05 | 11:50 PM
#59
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Muncie, IN
Originally Posted by hifisapien
Cant justify it? What are you on part time minimum wage salary? $1000 for a an extremely high quality TV is not expensive. If you can afford DVDs either rental or purchase then you certainly afford $100 a year ($1000 purchase spread over a 10 year life of the product). I still think you look at the price but dont look at the benefits. There is an old saying: "Some people know the price of everything and the value of nothing" I am willing to pay money to enhance my home entertainment and I still insist that $1000 is a very small price to pay for a really nice HDTV set, ESPECIALLY if you are into movies and DVDs. And since this a DVD forum, anyone reading this falls into that category. So ask yourself, how much do you spend on cable, satellitte, DVD purchases and rentals a year? ALL OF THOSE are greatly enhanced by the small annual cost of only $100 by purchasing good HDTV monitor to watch them. Its really foolish to spend all that money on software and services and then seriously degrade the high image quality you already paid for and continue to pay for by saving a few dollars and sticking with an old SDTV set to view them. I suggest how you can justify NOT buying a $1000 HDTV set?
where is the "economy" in that? Have you ever bought anything over $1000 in your life like a car or a house? Guess what? It doesnt kill you. You'll survive.
We are not talking a mortgage here, its only a $1000 dollars. This is 2005. $1000 dollars in 2005 is not a lot of money. like I said if you can afford to buy or rent DVDs you can afford $100 a year on a HDTV set purchase. Case not closed.
where is the "economy" in that? Have you ever bought anything over $1000 in your life like a car or a house? Guess what? It doesnt kill you. You'll survive.
We are not talking a mortgage here, its only a $1000 dollars. This is 2005. $1000 dollars in 2005 is not a lot of money. like I said if you can afford to buy or rent DVDs you can afford $100 a year on a HDTV set purchase. Case not closed.
01-11-05 | 07:48 AM
#61
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Kingston, TN
Originally Posted by hifisapien
Cant justify it? What are you on part time minimum wage salary? $1000 for a an extremely high quality TV is not expensive. If you can afford DVDs either rental or purchase then you certainly afford $100 a year ($1000 purchase spread over a 10 year life of the product). I still think you look at the price but dont look at the benefits. There is an old saying: "Some people know the price of everything and the value of nothing" I am willing to pay money to enhance my home entertainment and I still insist that $1000 is a very small price to pay for a really nice HDTV set, ESPECIALLY if you are into movies and DVDs. And since this a DVD forum, anyone reading this falls into that category. So ask yourself, how much do you spend on cable, satellitte, DVD purchases and rentals a year? ALL OF THOSE are greatly enhanced by the small annual cost of only $100 by purchasing good HDTV monitor to watch them. Its really foolish to spend all that money on software and services and then seriously degrade the high image quality you already paid for and continue to pay for by saving a few dollars and sticking with an old SDTV set to view them. I suggest how you can justify NOT buying a $1000 HDTV set?
where is the "economy" in that? Have you ever bought anything over $1000 in your life like a car or a house? Guess what? It doesnt kill you. You'll survive.
We are not talking a mortgage here, its only a $1000 dollars. This is 2005. $1000 dollars in 2005 is not a lot of money. like I said if you can afford to buy or rent DVDs you can afford $100 a year on a HDTV set purchase. Case not closed.
where is the "economy" in that? Have you ever bought anything over $1000 in your life like a car or a house? Guess what? It doesnt kill you. You'll survive.
We are not talking a mortgage here, its only a $1000 dollars. This is 2005. $1000 dollars in 2005 is not a lot of money. like I said if you can afford to buy or rent DVDs you can afford $100 a year on a HDTV set purchase. Case not closed.
They have become affordable and accessable to most people. With a little work most could buy them if they "wanted." Want will be driven by personal opinions - yours is obvious - what you don't seem to get is that a lot of people do not equate pretty picture = vastly superior entertainment. I will be just as entertained by The Matrix on my current set as I will on an HDTV. It will look better and may be clearer, but it is still the same movie. A movie can suck in HD just much as standard, just as it can kick ass just as much in HD as standard. I still watch VHS of stuff not on DVD - why - it is entertaining.
01-11-05 | 10:16 AM
#63
Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will combine my reply posts. With the best cinematography movies will NOT look as good on SD set as they do with DVDs and HDTV broadcasts on HDTV sets, period. Its not
that HDTV has a "pretty picture", it's that HDTV has the RIGHT picture, and SDTV has a distorted UGLY one. Visible scan lines and blurry images with poor color are not the way to enjoy high quality movies. Your DVDs have incredible quality but you cant see it with an old SDTV set. Regarding coming up with $1000 to buy a TV, if you no longer have good credit thats nobody's your fault but your own, I dont think you have a valid argument to say a $1000 HDTV is expensive, you have the argument to say you are poor/broke and can no longer afford even inexpensive items. You have to look at the prices of these things compared to the average salaries of typical americans, not homeless people. I am not weathly by any means and I have my fair share of debt too but I dont see how you can be spending $600 a year on DVDs and then claim $1000 for a HDTV is expensive when it lasts for many many years for that single $1000 payment AND IT GREATLY ENHANCES the value of the $1000's of dollars you are spending on the DVDs.....I'm sorry but this thread is going in circles because none of these arguments are holding any water, bottom line is if you buy DVDs then you should buy the HDTV to watch them. You cant say you cant afford the $1000 HDTV which is cheaper to buy than a monthly DVD habit is. Its makes no sense.
that HDTV has a "pretty picture", it's that HDTV has the RIGHT picture, and SDTV has a distorted UGLY one. Visible scan lines and blurry images with poor color are not the way to enjoy high quality movies. Your DVDs have incredible quality but you cant see it with an old SDTV set. Regarding coming up with $1000 to buy a TV, if you no longer have good credit thats nobody's your fault but your own, I dont think you have a valid argument to say a $1000 HDTV is expensive, you have the argument to say you are poor/broke and can no longer afford even inexpensive items. You have to look at the prices of these things compared to the average salaries of typical americans, not homeless people. I am not weathly by any means and I have my fair share of debt too but I dont see how you can be spending $600 a year on DVDs and then claim $1000 for a HDTV is expensive when it lasts for many many years for that single $1000 payment AND IT GREATLY ENHANCES the value of the $1000's of dollars you are spending on the DVDs.....I'm sorry but this thread is going in circles because none of these arguments are holding any water, bottom line is if you buy DVDs then you should buy the HDTV to watch them. You cant say you cant afford the $1000 HDTV which is cheaper to buy than a monthly DVD habit is. Its makes no sense.
01-11-05 | 10:45 AM
#64
Banned
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 15,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: NYC
Originally Posted by hifisapien
I will combine my reply posts. With the best cinematography movies will NOT look as good on SD set as they do with DVDs and HDTV broadcasts on HDTV sets, period. Its not
that HDTV has a "pretty picture", it's that HDTV has the RIGHT picture, and SDTV has a distorted UGLY one. Visible scan lines and blurry images with poor color are not the way to enjoy high quality movies. Your DVDs have incredible quality but you cant see it with an old SDTV set. Regarding coming up with $1000 to buy a TV, if you no longer have good credit thats nobody's your fault but your own, I dont think you have a valid argument to say a $1000 HDTV is expensive, you have the argument to say you are poor/broke and can no longer afford even inexpensive items. You have to look at the prices of these things compared to the average salaries of typical americans, not homeless people. I am not weathly by any means and I have my fair share of debt too but I dont see how you can be spending $600 a year on DVDs and then claim $1000 for a HDTV is expensive when it lasts for many many years for that single $1000 payment AND IT GREATLY ENHANCES the value of the $1000's of dollars you are spending on the DVDs.....I'm sorry but this thread is going in circles because none of these arguments are holding any water, bottom line is if you buy DVDs then you should buy the HDTV to watch them. You cant say you cant afford the $1000 HDTV which is cheaper to buy than a monthly DVD habit is. Its makes no sense.
that HDTV has a "pretty picture", it's that HDTV has the RIGHT picture, and SDTV has a distorted UGLY one. Visible scan lines and blurry images with poor color are not the way to enjoy high quality movies. Your DVDs have incredible quality but you cant see it with an old SDTV set. Regarding coming up with $1000 to buy a TV, if you no longer have good credit thats nobody's your fault but your own, I dont think you have a valid argument to say a $1000 HDTV is expensive, you have the argument to say you are poor/broke and can no longer afford even inexpensive items. You have to look at the prices of these things compared to the average salaries of typical americans, not homeless people. I am not weathly by any means and I have my fair share of debt too but I dont see how you can be spending $600 a year on DVDs and then claim $1000 for a HDTV is expensive when it lasts for many many years for that single $1000 payment AND IT GREATLY ENHANCES the value of the $1000's of dollars you are spending on the DVDs.....I'm sorry but this thread is going in circles because none of these arguments are holding any water, bottom line is if you buy DVDs then you should buy the HDTV to watch them. You cant say you cant afford the $1000 HDTV which is cheaper to buy than a monthly DVD habit is. Its makes no sense.
total agreement.
i just purchased my first HD and won't go back. The difference that I get from my DVD's alone is astounding, nevermind the HD broadcasts. This is the future.
And just to add something, say you purchase a $900 HD set. There are places that do free financing for a year. $900 divided by 12. Don't tell me you can't afford that if you're spending how much on dvd's every month.
01-11-05 | 11:40 AM
#65
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Northern Virginia
Considering how cheaply the current cost of manufacturing a DVD disc, I would say that DVD will be around for a long time. Eventually, those that keep buying DVD into the 2010's will get an itch to upgrade to HD (whether they choose to act on it or not, that's another story). It's a win-win situation for the studios as they want us to buy the same stuffs over and over.
01-11-05 | 11:43 AM
#66
Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Kumar J
I still can't afford a good Widescreen TV in Tokyo.I can't upgrade that fast.I learned my lesson from the Laserdisc.
How much is a typical DVD movie in Japan ( yen converted to USD?)
And how much is a 30" HDTV in Japan (yen converted to USD?)
Do the math.....Right now in the USA a 30" HDTV costs about the same price as only 50 DVDs.
01-11-05 | 11:57 AM
#67
Banned
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 15,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: NYC
Originally Posted by hifisapien
How much is a typical DVD movie in Japan ( yen converted to USD?)
And how much is a 30" HDTV in Japan (yen converted to USD?)
Do the math.....Right now in the USA a 30" HDTV costs about the same price as only 50 DVDs.
And how much is a 30" HDTV in Japan (yen converted to USD?)
Do the math.....Right now in the USA a 30" HDTV costs about the same price as only 50 DVDs.
01-11-05 | 07:12 PM
#68
Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Abilene, Texas, USA
I think it will be at least 10 years before HD-DVD outsells DVD. MANY people still have small 4x3 sets. But even on those small 4x3 sets, there is a pretty noticable quality difference between DVD on VHS. People with these sets are not going to want to upgrade, because they will see no difference. I would even say that most large analog TV sets won't be able to show much difference between SD DVD and HD DVD. I think it will take 5 years to sell even 30 million HD DVD players, because not that many people will care that much about the improved picture quality. Almost everyone will agree that VHS is very poor. And everyone will agree that DVD is very much improved. Very few people think that image quality is that important that they will spend 1000's of dollars upgrading equipment, just so they can see a "little" improvment. I don't see HD-DVD players dropping to less than $300 in the next 4 years. And I don't see them dropping to less than $99 in 6 years. I know plenty of people that love DVD, but they wouldn't pay more than $100 for a DVD player. Their are very few people who can afford that.
01-11-05 | 09:16 PM
#69
DVD Talk Special Edition
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by hifisapien
Do the math.....Right now in the USA a 30" HDTV costs about the same price as only 50 DVDs.
01-11-05 | 10:16 PM
#70
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
$1000 IS expensive to most people,even those with good paying jobs.
Unless you are a complete tech head that only cares about the tech side of things. Most don't care about HD or spending that much on tvs,nor will most 'see' much of a difference.
I don't look at it as 'gee how many hours will i get out of this thing?' when looking at tvs. I look at the price,figure out what price I am willing to go for,and if it is out of that range. Then I'll just forget about it,since I would look at how much I COULD buy for $1000(ie-mutiple other things,including stuff that is more important) to buying just ONE thing(which I may not use 24/7 as I am not a tv addict anymore,and only watch dvds when in the 'mood',which is not 24/7 daily anymore).
Also the important question with any purchase. Do I REALLY need this?
So I could either spend $1000 on something that sits in my room/house and is just 'there'. Or I could use the money more wisely and get out into the real world for a change,buy stuff I like,go out to eat,enjoy life....rather than sit at home vegging out in front of my expensive tv.
ps-I would have the same attitude if I were a millionaire,since I know how important spending wisely is,and you should'nt blow it all 'just because'.
Unless you are a complete tech head that only cares about the tech side of things. Most don't care about HD or spending that much on tvs,nor will most 'see' much of a difference.
I don't look at it as 'gee how many hours will i get out of this thing?' when looking at tvs. I look at the price,figure out what price I am willing to go for,and if it is out of that range. Then I'll just forget about it,since I would look at how much I COULD buy for $1000(ie-mutiple other things,including stuff that is more important) to buying just ONE thing(which I may not use 24/7 as I am not a tv addict anymore,and only watch dvds when in the 'mood',which is not 24/7 daily anymore).
Also the important question with any purchase. Do I REALLY need this?
So I could either spend $1000 on something that sits in my room/house and is just 'there'. Or I could use the money more wisely and get out into the real world for a change,buy stuff I like,go out to eat,enjoy life....rather than sit at home vegging out in front of my expensive tv.
ps-I would have the same attitude if I were a millionaire,since I know how important spending wisely is,and you should'nt blow it all 'just because'.
01-11-05 | 10:43 PM
#71
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Kingston, TN
Originally Posted by Al_Tahoe
Would you mind posting a link, please? Make sure that includes shipping, handling and tax. The total should be $400 to $500.
Actually at my recent pace/average it would be closer to 250-300 range since my last 100 or so DVDs have averaged around 5-6 bucks each.
*Real World Example*
My brother bought a Hitachi 51 inch Widescreen HDTV tonight (now I know 2 people with HDTV) and he is not the least bit worried about HD-DVD or even HD broadcast. He just bought it because he wanted a bigger tv and he got a decent price (why a great number of people buy new tvs).
He looked at the HD broadcast in the store and quote "thats nice", then stated he would get HDTV signal eventually - not anytime soon. This is a guy with an above average intellegence, large amounts of tech understanding and a decent sized home theater (THX Select, good speakers, etc) and he just is not that concerned about the difference - he likes the idea that he can upgrade but he is not drooling over it - he did drool over DVD - he was an early adopter. Illustrating once more that to alot of people there are more important things in life than resolution - the argument that normal tv is ugly and blurry with visible scan lines is absurd. What set is that person watching - HD is clearer (duh more resolution). I am a designer that works in a print shop so I understand the concept well - its a big difference - but the norm before was not horrid as it is being portrayed by some.
Oh and he spent $1300 which he agonized over for about an hour in the store before he did so. He did not think it was cheap. He commented that they sure had come down, but by no means did he indicate that he thought it was cheap.
Last edited by speedyray; 01-11-05 at 11:02 PM.
01-11-05 | 11:21 PM
#72
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Speedray,that is a great example and I am sure most 'normal' people would feel the same way about spending so much on anything.
..and yes SD tvs are nowhere nearly as 'terrible' as somee HD fans proclaim.
..and yes SD tvs are nowhere nearly as 'terrible' as somee HD fans proclaim.
01-12-05 | 01:39 AM
#73
Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Julie Walker
$1000 IS expensive to most people,even those with good paying jobs.
Unless you are a complete tech head that only cares about the tech side of things. Most don't care about HD or spending that much on tvs,nor will most 'see' much of a difference.
=============================================
The hifisapien comments:
you would have to be blind to not be able to see the difference between
DVDs or HDTV on a decent HDTV set vs. a SDTV set especially a large one or from a close viewing distance. The HD resolution is about 6 to 10 times
higher than SDTV. Its not like HDTV is "this years new model" slightly better
than last years, this is a whole new TV standard the first one since 1953. For christ's sake go see one before you make these absurd statements.
===============================================
I don't look at it as 'gee how many hours will i get out of this thing?' when looking at tvs. I look at the price,figure out what price I am willing to go for,and if it is out of that range. Then I'll just forget about it,since I would look at how much I COULD buy for $1000(ie-mutiple other things,including stuff that is more important) to buying just ONE thing(which I may not use 24/7 as I am not a tv addict anymore,and only watch dvds when in the 'mood',which is not 24/7 daily anymore).
=======================================================
The hifisapien comments:
Thats exactly my point, you look at it WRONG. You dont consider the "cost of ownership" and "user value" instead its just a "thing" to you. TVs arent "things" to me and I measure the benefits of something to determine the value before I look at the price and say its too expensive. If I am going to spend 1000's of hours watching movies at home on a video screen then it makes sense to buy one which will give the most enjoyment
of that time for reasonable price. And like my earlier example, about $100 a year is all it costs to own a nice HDTV set. That is very very reasonable
"cost of ownership" considering the number hours of much BETTER entertainment I will get out of it.
==========================================================
Also the important question with any purchase. Do I REALLY need this?
So I could either spend $1000 on something that sits in my room/house and is just 'there'. Or I could use the money more wisely and get out into the real world for a change,buy stuff I like,go out to eat,enjoy life....rather than sit at home vegging out in front of my expensive tv.
========================================
The hifisapien comments:
There are basically two things you need in life: Food and Water. All else is want. Sure you dont need a HDTV, you can stare at the wall for 3 hours a night. Do you buy DVDS? If not why are you here? If you spend money on DVDS, why watch them on SDTV smellivision if you dont have to anymore HDTV is not the future. HDTV is now.
================================================
ps-I would have the same attitude if I were a millionaire,since I know how important spending wisely is,and you should'nt blow it all 'just because'.
==================================================
The hifisapien comments:
Your trying to say buying a HDTV is "blowing" money? Home Entertainment is
blowing money? I dont think so.
==================================================
Unless you are a complete tech head that only cares about the tech side of things. Most don't care about HD or spending that much on tvs,nor will most 'see' much of a difference.
=============================================
The hifisapien comments:
you would have to be blind to not be able to see the difference between
DVDs or HDTV on a decent HDTV set vs. a SDTV set especially a large one or from a close viewing distance. The HD resolution is about 6 to 10 times
higher than SDTV. Its not like HDTV is "this years new model" slightly better
than last years, this is a whole new TV standard the first one since 1953. For christ's sake go see one before you make these absurd statements.
===============================================
I don't look at it as 'gee how many hours will i get out of this thing?' when looking at tvs. I look at the price,figure out what price I am willing to go for,and if it is out of that range. Then I'll just forget about it,since I would look at how much I COULD buy for $1000(ie-mutiple other things,including stuff that is more important) to buying just ONE thing(which I may not use 24/7 as I am not a tv addict anymore,and only watch dvds when in the 'mood',which is not 24/7 daily anymore).
=======================================================
The hifisapien comments:
Thats exactly my point, you look at it WRONG. You dont consider the "cost of ownership" and "user value" instead its just a "thing" to you. TVs arent "things" to me and I measure the benefits of something to determine the value before I look at the price and say its too expensive. If I am going to spend 1000's of hours watching movies at home on a video screen then it makes sense to buy one which will give the most enjoyment
of that time for reasonable price. And like my earlier example, about $100 a year is all it costs to own a nice HDTV set. That is very very reasonable
"cost of ownership" considering the number hours of much BETTER entertainment I will get out of it.
==========================================================
Also the important question with any purchase. Do I REALLY need this?
So I could either spend $1000 on something that sits in my room/house and is just 'there'. Or I could use the money more wisely and get out into the real world for a change,buy stuff I like,go out to eat,enjoy life....rather than sit at home vegging out in front of my expensive tv.
========================================
The hifisapien comments:
There are basically two things you need in life: Food and Water. All else is want. Sure you dont need a HDTV, you can stare at the wall for 3 hours a night. Do you buy DVDS? If not why are you here? If you spend money on DVDS, why watch them on SDTV smellivision if you dont have to anymore HDTV is not the future. HDTV is now.
================================================
ps-I would have the same attitude if I were a millionaire,since I know how important spending wisely is,and you should'nt blow it all 'just because'.
==================================================
The hifisapien comments:
Your trying to say buying a HDTV is "blowing" money? Home Entertainment is
blowing money? I dont think so.
==================================================
01-12-05 | 02:02 AM
#74
Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Julie Walker
Speedray,that is a great example and I am sure most 'normal' people would feel the same way about spending so much on anything.
..and yes SD tvs are nowhere nearly as 'terrible' as somee HD fans proclaim.
..and yes SD tvs are nowhere nearly as 'terrible' as somee HD fans proclaim.
DVDs in one purchase, let alone a whole year. You keep trying to say that
$1000 is a lot of money period and how long something lasts or how much use you get out of something that costs $1000 doesnt matter. IT DOES!
SD sucks unless you watch it on a tiny screen or a big screen from real far far away. HDTV is so more realistic that once you watch it for a while you notice the very bad flaws in SDTV that much more . SDTV looks fake and "electronic" while HDTV looks like you are screening a film. HDTV is cimematic, SDTV is garbage full of blurs, artifacts, scan lines, shimmers, etc that all go away with HDTV. Like I said in an eariler post. HDTV is all about high fidelity and realism. HDTV isnt "pretty", HD is right, and SDTV is more wrong because it isnt anywhere near as accurate as HD is to the orignal film image or the directors and cinematographers vision.
01-12-05 | 07:25 AM
#75
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Kingston, TN
*From ecoustics.com*
The HDTV format is 1920 lines of horizontal resolution.
Which is 1920x1080, known as the 1080i format.
Compare that to the normal NTSC broadcasting of now at 330 line resolution with its bandwidth limit of 4.2 MHz.DVD s-video bandwidth is limited to about 6 MHz and thus 475 lines.
*Comment*
475 vs 1920 - That would be 4 times, not 6 to 10 times. A big improvement, but not as much as claimed (6-10). If there are technical specs I am missing or someone feels my logic is wrong, help me out. Oh, I guess it is close to 6 times on the broadcast, but I do not watch much if any television so that was less important to me.
The argument of $100 a year does not work so get off it. You have no reason to believe a tv will last 10 years. I bought my last tv 5-6 years ago. By your logic I should skip HDTV for another 4 years. In this day and age items are replaced more quickly. Plus, the warranty is only for 1 or 2 years depending on model. If it breaks in year 4 what are you going to do - pay out the nose to fix it or just get a new one. The purchase price is the purchase price period. When I buy a car I do not look at how much it breaks down to each month or day, I look at the sticker price - I might trade it after two years.
The HDTV format is 1920 lines of horizontal resolution.
Which is 1920x1080, known as the 1080i format.
Compare that to the normal NTSC broadcasting of now at 330 line resolution with its bandwidth limit of 4.2 MHz.DVD s-video bandwidth is limited to about 6 MHz and thus 475 lines.
*Comment*
475 vs 1920 - That would be 4 times, not 6 to 10 times. A big improvement, but not as much as claimed (6-10). If there are technical specs I am missing or someone feels my logic is wrong, help me out. Oh, I guess it is close to 6 times on the broadcast, but I do not watch much if any television so that was less important to me.
The argument of $100 a year does not work so get off it. You have no reason to believe a tv will last 10 years. I bought my last tv 5-6 years ago. By your logic I should skip HDTV for another 4 years. In this day and age items are replaced more quickly. Plus, the warranty is only for 1 or 2 years depending on model. If it breaks in year 4 what are you going to do - pay out the nose to fix it or just get a new one. The purchase price is the purchase price period. When I buy a car I do not look at how much it breaks down to each month or day, I look at the sticker price - I might trade it after two years.
Last edited by speedyray; 01-12-05 at 07:27 AM.