I agree with point 1. I could care less what people buy, and will never say something should be good enough (or conversely not good enough) for anyone else.

Point 2 I semi agree with, but there is some validity to that stance. If it remains too much of a niche market it will hurt the size of the library of films available in HD, especially catalog titles.

Not only that, but at least with HD-DVD we're getting a better value, I think, than what we got with DVD initially, and not just because the A/V quality is better. Many releases have retained the extras from their 2-disc DVD counterparts when applicable. With DVD, on many early releases you were lucky to get a commentary, let alone much else. While there were some decent special editions like Contact and some of the early Criterions, it was two years before we got substantial (2-disc) sets of extras.

Hell... they're even cheaper with Google Checkout.

I don't think it would be that much different.

You would still have your typical naysayers that would remain dedicated DVD owners simply because they've invested their life savings into creating a film library larger than Netflix.

I still find it hilarious that the Video Game Community never seems to complain about upgrading to a next-gen console with new $50-60 games.

Well, until this current round of machines, the graphics upgrade was always more than what you get from DVD to HD-DVD (or even VHS to DVD) IMO, so that made it a bit easier to swallow.

It is getting to the point of diminishing returns now though, with the improvements from the Gamecube/X-box/PS2 to the Wii/360/PS3 not being nearly as big in the past and it is a much more bitter pill to swallow.

But of course the big difference is you have no choice but to upgrade to the new system as they quit making games for the old one within a year or two, while their is no risk of DVDs going away anytime soon.

So even if you have a problem with it you either upgrade every 5 or 6 years, quit gaming or just play old games.

Right, and I went into more detail about how I agree about those disadvantages a couple pages back. Still, using Laserdisc as a point of reference, it didn't have everything, but it had a pretty robust selection of titles. A similar type of line-up in high-def would be good enough for me. I could still pick up DVDs to fill in the gaps if I needed to.

100% agreement...

I guess its best said that most people, on either side are split in the middle with both sides having their fair share of crazies. Kinda like Republicans vs. Democrats

I, the creator of this thread have really enjoyed reading your replys.
I today made the plunge and finally got a HDTV, im very impressed and have ordered a DVD player that upscales and uses HDMI.

I'm also slightly more comfortable with the idea of using HD/BR for new titles... that is once I have a ps3 or HD DVD player

interesting points, i didn't realize that high def over component is going to happen after all with these.
Also, that's a nice point about the price. I didn't get into DVD right away (I got my first player in 2000) so by that time you could get a decent player for $200-250.

I don't have any fundamental problem with high-def DVD in general. I don't have enough money at the moment to afford a new HDTV, but assuming the practical financial constraints weren't a factor for me, I'd be ready to jump on board if not for the damn format war. That's the real deal breaker for me. I assume title availability will improve (assuming that the formats don't tank altogether), glitches/bugs will get worked out, hardware prices will drop dramatically, features & content will evolve, disc prices will come down and HD drives will get incorporated into other CE devices like desktops, laptops and portable units for alternative viewing beyond your main HT setup. But without a single standard format, I'm not gambling my money away on a potentially obsolete format. Sorry, but I'm just not gonna do it. And the prospect of combo players don't solve the problem either. Having a combo beta/vhs player in 1983 wouldn't change the fact that I'm gonna be stuck with a lot of obsolete beta tapes in 1993 that are no longer supported by hardware upgrades. And who's gonna be manufacturing those combo players years after one format has bit the dust? So it's really just delaying the inevitable which is that you'll have to rebuy all those now obsolete discs. End the format war and you can begin taking my money.

I've been tempted to sell some DVDs just to pare down my collection a bit. In the early days I'd buy stuff just because it was a great deal, or I'd buy movies I liked but don't necessarily have any rewatchability in retrospect. Seriously, I have so many DVDs I know I will never go out of my way to watch again. At the same time, I'll hardly get anything for them so I'm not sure it's worth the effort unless I start to run out of room.

I have cut back on my DVD purchasing the past year or two, but it has more to do with acknowledging the above points than with HD formats.

I've already put in my two cents' worth, but I didn't really mention whether I'd sell off any of my existing DVDs. I don't think I'd do that right away, although once I buy a PS3, it won't really matter to me whether Blu-ray fails or not... I'll still have a machine to play the discs. Of course if HD-DVD becomes the standard, it means I'll also have to buy an HD-DVD player, and the temptation to replace the few Blu-ray titles I will have collected with HD-DVDs will be undeniable, but not necessarily irresistible. I'm with most other folks in that either format will have to become as widely accepted as standard DVD (although the things are available at WAL-MART, which never happened with Laserdisc, so what more could you want?) before I rely on the HD version and sell my standard DVD of any title.

I can see myself ditching discs like ICE AGE 2 in favor of the Blu-ray version, because if for some reason I want to go back to the standard DVD, I could easily pick up a used copy for not much more than what I could get for the Blu-ray version. Of course I'd hang on to any bonus material that doesn't show up on the high-def release of any particular movie, so it could be a situation where I ditch the movie-only disc and keep Disc 2, or something like that.

As far as older titles go, I'll be reeeallly slow in buying HD versions of those, mostly because I don't really need to see a 30-year-old film in crystal clarity. If either format takes hold though, I'd definitely upgrade to an HD disc as long as I wouldn't lose any DVD-only bonus material.

Well, I guess that's all I have to say on the subject, and it probably isn't much different from what everyone else has been saying. Just wanted to get back to casual discussion instead of heated debate.

Believe it or not, many of the most amazing looking HD titles are the older ones that WB is dropping on the market. In some cases the level of detail makes me feel like I'm seeing movies for the first time all over again. I knew the older titles would be better quality than dvd, but some of the titles are much better than a lot of the post 90's stuff.

If you get a chance, I fully suggest checking out the back catalog titles.

That's another good point someone else raised earlier. I'm one of those people that is really into extras. I don't think I'll be too quick to upgrade titles that don't carry over all the extras (or at least the really significant ones) from the SD-DVD version. It seems like HD-DVD has been doing that, which is cool. But as much as I'd like to get Star Wars or Lawrence of Arabia in HD, I don't think I'll bite unless they are as packed as their standard DVD counterparts. Otherwise I'm just setting myself up for a bunch of unnecessary HD double-dips down the road. Again, that's something I don't comprehend about BRD's marketing strategy. If the goal is to entice people into upgrading to a new format, then why strip away most or all of the bonus features? Why not put out releases that really show off the potential of the new format instead of reinforcing the idea that it's all a bogus marketing ploy predicated on corporate greed? It just looks so obvious to me that Sony is holding back with hopes of another two-phase marketing scheme. They'll probably abandon that scheme, but not of their own volition, rather to stay competitive with HD-DVD which is for the most part porting over all the extras from the SD releases.

It's funny all of the exclusive studios on Blu-Ray are heavily into double dipping that's why I could never understand why Uni didn't join the BD camp. That's why I won't be purchasing many HD-DVDs or BD(once I get a PS3) at the outset. I'll be waiting for the inevitable double dip.

Yeah, I mean if you see an HD release of something like Titanic with little or none of the extras found on the standard DVD, is it any great mystery that a definite double-dip is on the horizon? We all know how it works at this point. It was one thing when DVD's first came out. We were conditioned to VHS releases, so the sight of a bunch of bare-bones discs didn't raise a red flag of caution. Sony and those guys must be seriously out to lunch if they think everyone's not wise to the intentional pre-planned double/triple-dip scenario. I'm not buying bare-bones HD discs of any movies that have extras on regular DVD. Not unless there's a legitimate reason for them not being carried over like a rights issue or something.

I bought into Blu-Ray, but I haven't given up on regular DVD's. I will selectively replace my favorite DVD's with Blu-ray as they become available. New titles will also be bought on Blu-ray, but if there's a smaller title that will not get a BD release for quite a while, I have no hesitation in buying the DVD.

Yes, absolutely. Most of the older titles I have are pretty barebones, so if I had a PS3 I'd probably start replacing them with Blu-ray. Of course I wouldn't notice much of a difference if I watched them on my current TV, but I have a DVI-equipped monitor I could check 'em out on. Given that film has an almost infinite "resolution" (limited of course by the quality of the film stock, and yes, I know that resolution doesn't apply to film, that's why it's in "quotes"), you've never seen any film really shine on standard-def DVD, at least not in the way a good HD transfer would show you.

That's something I've always wanted to know. What (digital) resoultion would be as close to on par with film as you can get at this point? I mean assuming you had a modern film, shot on top quality film stock, expertly photographed, and in pristine condition, what TV resolution would get as close to that as possible? I know it's not 1080p. So what? 4000p? 10,000p? 100,000p? I realize none of those exist, but hypothethically if there was no ceiling on far you could push it, then what would best approximate "film quality"?

Sorry, I've seen it posted somewhere, but can't remember where. It's pretty high, but perhaps not as high as you'd think. If it helps, the new Sony/Panavision "Genesis" cameras are supposed to equal film, in terms of resolution. My best suggestion would be to Google for "film resolution" and see what comes up.

Wait... I just did that. Among many others, here's a result that might give you at least a ballpark, although it's megapixels rather than HxV.

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...digital.1.html

It's out there. I've read comments like:
Those who aren't upgrading right now are to blame if HD fails.
By not upgrading now you are limiting the number of titles available to us who have upgraded. It's your fault more titles aren't available.
Only fools would spend money on a HD tv if they aren't watching HD discs on it.
Watching SD dvds on a HD tv is a waste of an HD tv
People who watch SD dvd have no real appreciation of movies

The sword cuts both ways.

Bringing this thread full circle...
Seeing that The Digital Bits is reporting that Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest sold a staggering 5 million copies on DVD on its first day of release, looks like "everyone" isn't giving up on DVD yet...

I fall into the camp of I'd love to upgrade, but don't have the money to upgrade my TV and DVD player to HD, and with 3 kids probably won't for a long while. I'm guessing I'm not alone in this situation.

And as joliom pointed out, the format war drives me (and I'm sure Joe six pack) crazy -- HD is already confusing for the average consumer, the format war makes it even harder for them to understand. If you're a collector, you don't want to back a format that will be dead in few years. At least with standard DVD, HD players will be backwards compatible.