Probably not too many. By the time they come out I won't have as much disposable income. Likely just my very favourite movies. Some I would for sure are:

Lord of the Rings
Lawrence of Arabia
A.I.
The Shawshank Redemption

I'm satisfied with the sound just as it is, so none. The only thing I ever double dip for are special editions of movies I love. I double dipped for Goodfellas for that reason.

Probably none as long as my dvds still work in the player.

Having the extended editions of Lord of the Rings on a single disc instead of two would be nice. I'd say the same for Pearl Harbor: DC but who cares?

I have no idea, but probably not many.

It's really hard for me to say. I love DVD as it is (blasphemy, I know) and in the vein that they are currently being released, with very clean prints of movies both old and new and good DD 5.1 and sometimes DTS soundtracks. I'm just not sold on the format yet and I will NEVER be sold on switching formats from the ground up all over again after spending the last 6 years tossing hundreds of tapes and buying the same titles on disc, plus scads more. I love collecting movies, but I've spent a massive amount of money getting to this point; I'm not vastly wealthy enough to do this every 5-7 years. Many people are slobbering waiting for HD-DVD to hit the shelves, but I'm not one of them.

When I can buy HD discs as cheaply as I can buy standard DVDs I'll buy HD's. Until then I'll enjoy what I have, which is a large library of great movies and concerts.

At least we'll get Charlie's Angels 2.

I don't even have a BluRay player/recorder, so I will be sticking with DVD.

i dont think id double dip for any just based on picture/sound. If they had lots more extras then films like LotR would be first on my list as well as possibly the Pixar films

But im not really that excited about HD and am in no hurry to get it.

It's not a double-dip, any more than upgrading from VHS to DVD would be double-dipping.

thats technically true, but for some reason I would still consider it a double dip. maybe because its still a dvd after all.

They're not out yet. Why would anyone have one?

I don't consider a change from analog to digital and physical format such as VHS to DVD or record to CD really to be double-dipping.

A better image in the same format seems much more of a double-dip to me. The improvement in audio, video, and convenience just won't be as drastic as the other format changes were.

I agree. DVD offered so much more than just better a/v quality over VHS. Instant scene access, no rewinding, more durable, extra features, OAR for all titles, DD 5.1/DTS, etc.

With Blu-ray/HD-DVD where just getting more resolution and less compressed audio. Nice features, but a minor upgrade compared to going from VHS to DVD. Not to mention I only owned a handful of VHS tapes, and didn't really start buying movies until DVD. And many I know where the same way.

So it's a totall different scenario this time around.

All due respect, X, I disagree. The improvement in video quality will be of a higher magnitude over SDVD than DVD was to VHS. That is a mathematical undisputable fact.

Now as far as the impact this new format will have, ot will not make anywhere near the impact that DVD did.

I disagree. There's a significant difference in picture quality between 480p and 1080i.

I don't think that will be enough to get most people to replace their collections. First, you'll need a display that will do justice to that improvement in resolution. A double-dip means buying the same movie again. So you'll need people to want to watch a disc they're already seen enough to buy it again just for that increase in resolution. Space for added features may make a difference here though.

CDs won over records for size, convenience and lack of clicks and pops, not superior resolution. DVDs won over VHS for more than just the improved resolution, tapes had dropouts and tracking problems and were bulky. And tapes just plain looked bad.

You reach a limit of how good is good enough. My car can go 160 mph. It's a big improvement over one that can go 90 and rattles while it's doing it. But would I buy a second car that could go 500 mph? Even though there's an even larger improvement than my 160 was over the 90, that improvement isn't useful enough to buy an additional car. However if I didn't have a car in the first place I'd probably get the faster one.

To be honest the selling point for me will probably be features. Once the new tech is out I'll start buying the new releases in that format but I just don't see myself double dipping on a lot of things...

Since I am never on the cutting edge of tech, I won't have a TV or sound system that will be able to take advantage of the new players. The only way I'll buy the DVD's (and the player itself) is if there are significant extras.

Will the average person own the equipment or even notice a difference? I am not convinced.

I'll upgrade the big, epic films and non-anamorphic DVD's (I think I have 12-15 currently). None until I upgrade my HT, which might be mid-07 at the earliest.

It may be mathematically true, but that diminishing marginal utility kicks in fast. VHS Tapes wore out, had to be rewound, were rarely available in widescreen, rarely had special features, etc. That is what really brought people to dvd.
The switch from dvd to blu-ray is incremental in the video and audio department for most. And there are no other leaps with the technology. I mean, 30% of sales are still in fullscreen even to this day.
I'd still find a much bigger difference in a crappy tape to a dvd, then I ever do in a nice dvd to the HD broadcasts on HBO-HD NO DOUBT. That is why I am just not sure how well this stuff will sell. It won't move in dvd-like sales figures on any movies for YEARS and YEARS at least, if it ever gets there.

Anything that doesn't come in a snapper or digipak.

I don't think most are going to replace their entire collections, I am certainly not advocating for that. My point is that saying the difference is marginal is just not true. The potential for well-mastered HD blows SDVD away. Once the prices of the equipment come down and the discs are able to be found with bargqains, then will switch my buying over to whichever format wins. For most of my collection now, SDVD is fine. There is that 5% of titles I would "double-dip" for.

Many of the arguments that are levelled against the HD formats are the exact same ones levelled against DVD by LD purists back in the day.

HD sets will explode this year and next. This Xmas will be a record growth period for HD sales. The prices of the sets are coming down.

Believe me, I love my DVDs, and I would never ever suggest waiting to get something for the HD version down the line. I also agree completely that DVD was the same paradigm shift from VHS that CD was from LP or cassette. Finally, I agree that HD will not just push DVD off the hill overnight. In fact, I expect to see HD/BR discs with multiple SDVD versions of films on them. Like the entire LOTR EE on one BD-ROM, or entore seasons of shows on two discs instead of nine. So in a way, DVD is not going away, it is evolving.

All that said, film is a visual experience, and better visuals will move equipment. That is where the comparisson to music sort of breaks down. Average consumers will be able to see a difference, and they will want one.

Who knows? In five years maybe those of us (like me) that say only selected films will be double-dipped will be eating their words. Or this thing will fall flat on its ass and a friendlier HD solution will arise. One way or another, HD is coming whether we want it or not.

Well put!

I probably will continue to buy the cheaper non-HD discs as long as they continue to make them. I'll buy a new movie on HD only if it's really worth the spectacle (and if the price isn't ridiculous). The only one of my current 800-900 movies that I'm anxious to replace is the first "Matrix" (since I own the original release and the transfer isn't all that great).