Okay, I've thought of a reason people may be applauding this move.

Criterion titles have been known to go out of print. People don't want Criterion to get into HD until they're ready to get into HD, because they don't want Criterion's early HD titles to go OOP before they're ready to buy them. They want to be able to get the next Salo or The Killer at a reasonable price, but they don't want to have to buy a disc they can't play yet.

Then, they may have to choose which format to buy it on, if Criterion supports both formats. If they buy the titles for what turns out to be the losing format, they could end up with discs they won't even get a chance to watch, unless dual-format players become the norm.

I agree completely. However, it does seem like there a quite a few HDTV owners out there that are happy running 480p.

It is sad it has become a war on DVD. DVD will be around and be important for a long time just like laserdisc was important for so long all the years it took for DVD to build a decent library (DVD more so obviously do to its mainstream success). I simply think waiting to start building an HD library is a mistake if you have the equipment now. The format war is the cause of much of this though so I can definitely understand.

I think threads like this are important for the same reason the VHS or LD vs DVD talks were years ago. Even though people argued that LD or VHS are good enough and they didn't need DVD it still got many of the people reading interested in the format. I think that will also happen here.

$5 says this thread dies now that it's been moved here...to HD land.

If you like the film, I don't understand why someone wouldn't want it to look and sound as good as possible.

HD isn't just for movies where things blow up. I'm really looking forward to getting A Christmas Story on HD DVD. That's one of only a handful of movies that I can *guarantee* I watch at least once a year -- having it look as good as possible seems to make sense.

I give it plenty of credit, but it is also limited by more factors than resolution. For instance the display device, being a two dimensional image, removes an entire dimension the eye can otherwise behold in nature. So there's some apples and oranges there.

For the same reason people watch movies on their laptop when they could be watching on a 63" screen with surround sound. Or because they can buy multiple movies in 480p for every 1 movie in 1080p. Plus the extra $XXX.xx for the player up front. Plus they already own A Christmas Story. Remember, very few people owned extensive VHS libraries when DVD came out. It was a rental driven market.

When a single format clearly has won out, and the cost difference of HD-DVD media is minimal to non-existent, I will upgrade my player and only buy HD-DVD content going forward with the occasional upgrade of select titles already owned as they become inexpensive (ie, start showing up at the used DVD stores). Until then, I happen to agree with Criterion. There simply is no significant market for even and HD Seven Samurai if it must retail for $100.

I don't personally know anyone who owned a laserdisc. I don't think I know anyone who does not own a DVD. Those are two extrememly different sets of circumstances.

I also don't recall anyone thinking VHS was good enough, far from it. Maybe the laserdisc people thought that, I don't know because as I stated I don't know anyone who owned one. But there was some caution as to whether DVD would stick around enough to become worth the investment. Once it became apparent it would, and the costs plummeted, people jumped aboard in droves.

One thing that would help me jump sooner to HD-DVD is box sets on a reduced scale. The Complete Monty Python in a double wide single case would be worth more to me than the minimally detectable (given the source) improvement in image.

There are already HD DVD and Blu-Ray equipped laptops though. Smaller screen doesn't necessarily require lower quality.

Money's a factor, but it was a factor when DVD came out. Eventually, like DVD, the HD formats will hit the disc and machine prices that will spur people to upgrade.

Plenty of people already owned A Christmas Story on DVD when the anamorphic WS DVD re-release came out. Previous ownership really has slowed down sales of double-dips on DVD, so I don't see why it should really hamper the HD formats that much, especially since the HD can offer a more advance upgrade over just a handful of new extras.

Who the hell said it would retail for $100. The prices for HD discs are only marginally more than DVD, even less so if you consider the prices DVDs started at. Criterion's HD titles may be $10 or so higher, but I don't see $100 releases as likely at all.

Also, don't forget that Criterion started out in LD, which had $100 pricetags almost regularly. So even if $100 HD titles were true, that wouldn't necessarily keep Criterion out of the market.

Well, the SD-DVD retails for $49.95, and HD content is retailing about 1/3 higher, plus by their statement at this time they would feel compelled to release in both formats which increases the costs even further, so $79.95 is not out of the question (at this time).
And just as I said, I personally know no one who owned laserdiscs.

*raises hand*

I have a 57" 16:9 RPTV that is very regularly professionally re-calibrated by Avical (look them up www.avical.com), and I do 56-point convergence every month. I have a very nice Onkyo 7.1 receiver that would be capable of handling the analog multi-channel from the player.

I have an Oppo 971H upconverting player which is viewed by many over at AVS as one of the best upconverting players. I am quite serious about my HT.

DVD is good enough for me right now.

It's better than good enough. It looks quite great on my setup.

I'm sure HD will look even better. But that's not keeping me from enjoying the sizeable library I've built. I just watched the new print of Brazil from CC, and it was very impressive and satisfying to me.

Also, I have HD cable, and most of the channels like HBO and Fox leave something to be desired. Hell, watching Lost on DVD looked better to me than the HD braodcast.

However, I have HDnet, which seems to have much better bandwidth and brodcasting, as many of the HD movies I've seen them show look fantastic. As such, I feel I have a decent impression of what HD on disc will offer, even assuming the disc versions will be 50% better. And guess what? That's still not enough for me to dump all SD.

Any HD purchase I make in the next year, if it happens, will be done with the understanding I am paying the amount the player costs specifically to watch HD movies from a handful of studios.

If they put out Lord Of The Rings, I'm there. If they put out Star Wars, I'm there. I will consider the hardware part of the price of owing the movies in HD.

But in the long run, Batman Begins, King Kong and Superman, as much as I enjoyed them, will likely not be enough for me to spend a ton of money on new hardware. I hem and haw on this whenever I see Batman on the store racks, but I suspect when the time comes and the 2nd-gen Toshiba players are actually available, I will be be a lot more hesitant if things stay the way they are now with no clear winner.

You're expecting something to change in the next week? G2 machines are shipping on the 13th.

$79.95 is not $100. Also, it's not really known that Criterion's price would be 30% higher, since most of those releases that are that much more cost quite a bit less. And anyway, it really wouldn't concern you, since you're not upgrading at the moment, right? There likely are people that would pay a premium for Criterion HD content, just like they're paying more for other studios' HD content, because they want the film in a much better format.

Several studios release in both formats, and their releases don't cost any more than the single-format studios' releases do.

But you do realize that such people did exist, right? Enough people to keep Criterion going as a company for 14 years, releasing 388 titles, which is, at the moment, still more than they've released on DVD.

Again, Criterion is not staying out of HD discs for the moment because they don't see any merit in it as a delivery format, or that they don't feel the market will be big enough to be profitable for them. They're staying out because at the moment there's two competing formats and no easy way of providing content for both.

So you're not saying that "HD is good enough" at all. What you're saying is that there's no titles out at this moment that are desirable enough to compel you to upgrade. Once Star Wars or LOTR is out, DVD is suddenly not going to be "good enough" for those titles.

Those are very, very good points. DVDs advantages over VHS outnumber the advantages of HD discs over DVD, especially when concerned with existing equipment. It's for those reasons that I don't think the HD disc formats will catch on quite as quickly as DVD did. However, HDTV is the future, and everyone will eventually be owning HDTVs and viewing HD content, and at that point DVDs aren't going to be "good enough."

Spoken like someone who hasn't experienced HDTV. Even though I'm personally holding back on purchasing an HD player, I know that sticking with DVDs is only a temporary situation, and I ache for HD to become mainstream and affordable.

OAR really isn't dependent on format. We could've had OAR on VHS as a standard if the market had demanded it. That said, OAR in HD is much more workable, since you're dealing with so much more resolution and a wider aspect ratio that matting the screen image to 2.35:1 doesn't cause the drastic drop in image resolution or size that it does on a DVD played on a standard 4:3 TV.

HD DVD is completely region-free while Blu-Ray's regions are less and thus less restrictive, while neither have the multi-format, PAL vs. NTSC, issues that DVD had. So access to foreign films should be quite easier.

As for OOP titles, those are very likely to appear on the new formats since the new formats provide a new outlet of revenue for those titles.

They were out there, and a few holdouts probably still exist. I know from experience that there are a number of people who didn't buy a DVD player until they were almost literally forced into, being unable to buy or rent new releases in VHS anymore, with the back catalog rapidly disappearing from video stores.

I remember people citing the price differences, how much it cost for a new player, and how much more the DVDs cost compared to the relatively much less expensive VHS versions. In fact, catalog DVDs have reached about the same price-point as catalog VHS was at that time......

The situation really isn't that far removed. Pretty much anyone saying that "DVD is good enough" is in reality saying "DVD is good enough for now." The tides are changing, and Criterion sees it. They just don't think it's time to move out to sea quite yet.

I haven't kept aware of the timeline. My comment is meant to say that I won't be buying any machine that doesn't have HDMI 1.3, which to my knowledge, only the XA2 will have (correct?).

Incorrect.

DVD would most definitely still be good enough on SW and LOTR, but on the few film properties like these I am fanatical about, I would be more willing to seek out the best.

What I am saying is the titles currently available aren't the kind I feel compelled to chase down in the best form possible, especially with two separate formats to choose from. I own many of the titles currently available in HD and BD on DVD. While I like these films very much, they alone are not worth the hardware + software investment at this time given the uncertainty of success for the formats.

I will say if there had been a unified format from the start I would have been much more willing to support it even while I was content with DVD. But I am not going to go out of my way to reward either campaign for creating a format war. Especially when I am still very much enjoying the discs I already have.



The "good enough" argument is very hard to prove because we all have different standards. Personally, VHS was never good enough, therefore the jump to DVD was warranted for me. And BTW I didn't even get into DVD until late 2000, but this was mostly due to the economics factors at the time.

DVD however, is producing many fine releases right now that are most certainly good enough. Simply put, if DVD was the final format my favorite films were available in, I'd be happy, because I'd have a great resolution, non-degrading copy of the film. I never felt like this about VHS. And please notice how I am able to make these points without taking anything away from the quality of the HD formats.

Again, show me a unified or winning format with a great chance of longevity, I will support it. I know, if I don't support it now, how will it succeed? Well, Sony and Toshiba should have thought about that before creating the war.

I'm not naive-I know HD is the way of the future. But that fact alone does not render DVD "not good enough" in my eyes.

Thanks for the response. I'm still not certain what your real objection is. You seem to make several points:

1) You are serious about your HD
2) SD DVD looks great on your set up
3) You feel that HD DVD will make your current SD DVD library obsolete
4) You have a general feeling that HD DVD will be superior in quality to DVD but are unclear on how to quantify it and don't think it would be significant enough to warrant a change.
5) You are waiting for specific titles.
6) You will have to spend a lot of money on new hardware.

First off, I'm not trying to convince you to do anything. I asked myself these same questions before making the jump. Let me see if I can address some of your points.

1) Besides being a dramatic improvement in video resolution, one item you didn't seem to address is the leap in audio quality. As a audio/videophile you will definitely notice the difference in sound quality in the DD+ tracks not to mention the lossless tracks. This was a major issue with me being into LDs. The overly compressed audio on SD DVDs to improve video quality has been a big pet peeve for me for years which is why I still watch LDs on a regular basis.

2) That won't change. You can continue to enjoy your SD DVDs for years to come. You could keep your OPPO and/or use the new machine.

3) My HD-A1 is a fantastic upconverting player as is your OPPO. I own a Toshiba SD-4900 that I'm keeping only for my non-R1 dvds. Everything else is being played on my HD player. Your SD DVDs will absolutely not become obsolete.

4) Try and find a demo on a properly calibrated TV. I think you will be surprised by how good it looks. It's hard to gauge it without seeing it since you are so happy with your current set up.

5) I hear you there. I wish the variety was better. Non of my favorite movies are available but I'm finding plenty of movies that I enjoy.

6) You have all the gear. I did too so I was able to make the jump to HD DVD jump for under $400 which included the HDMI to DVI cable I needed to buy. I didn't already own a unconverting player so it seemed like a no brainer in my situation.

Hope that helps a little.

I agree 100%!

When dvd first came out, I had one 19 inch tv with no S video. I went and got an RF Modulator and the difference BLEW ME AWAY. Few years later, I upgraded to COMPONENT and though not "blown away" (My new S video tv had a great 3 line digital comb filter) I DID notice slightly better color reproduction and a much more stable image. I WILL adopt HDTV, but not until the prices for them as well as players and the dvds themselves reach levels to MY LIKING, and not because someone thinks my stubborness is screwing them from the medium exploding. TOO BAD. Buy the stuff for me and I'll have at it.

The reason neither BR/HD will "win" is because neither is that much more convenient than SDdvds.

The next (widely adopted) step is not necessarily about quality, but about an increased ease of use.

For example, SACD and DVD-audio were much higher quality than CDs, but weren't any more convenient, so they failed. MP3s, however, are gaining ground over CDs, even though they are of a lower quality, but they are much more convenient.

I'm all for HDdvds, but I'm under no illusion that they will take over dvds any time soon, if at all.

Your point regarding MP3's is well taken. They are definitely inferior in quality to CDs but the convenience is what is so nice about them. Using an Ipod while excercising or traveling. Also, using them in a so-so car system makes a lot of sense over carrying a case of 100 CDs. Convenience trumps quality lots of time. In the comfort of my own home, where I got all my good stuff, this is less of a factor.

Does anyone realistically think that they will?

I really couldn't care less whether or not HD DVD becomes the dominant format. I buy HD DVDs because I want to watch the movies I love in the highest quality form available, not to join some sort of bandwagon. As long as there's a steady supply of movies at fairly reasonable prices, I'll be happy.

I would use caution in assuming the high-rez audio failure will apply to video. People (on average) don't care about audio to the extent they do about video. TVs have been getting bigger and higher resolution and people have been buying them. There is no equivalent in the audio market. Also, audio can be used on the go, video cannot since we have to watch the road. A smaller format was far more useful for audio, and quality was far from the main issue for most people.

I can see it happening, if they do it right. For instance, barebones theatrical releases on SD DVD only. Special Editions, Director's cuts, Extended Editions, Ultimate Editions, etc on HD.

Intentionally not giving the consumers what they want has never been a great business plan.