My posts have probably been a little scatterbrained so I'll clarify here:


1) You are serious about your HD

About my HT. Not sure if that was a typo.

2) SD DVD looks great on your set up

Yes.


3) You feel that HD DVD will make your current SD DVD library obsolete

No. Not sure how this was inferred.

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.

Fair. I have little doubt if HD's superiority in AV quality.

5) You are waiting for specific titles.

Sort of. Only a handful of titles would guarantee a purchase of one of the formats. Most titles might make me more interested, but few would make me feel I *have* to get them in HD.

6) You will have to spend a lot of money on new hardware.

My RPTV is about 3.5 years old, and I would imagine I'll upgrade to front projection or a DLP set in about 2 years. My current set has a DVI that is HDCP enabled so I'm OK there. I of course prefer to use the component anyway, but I don't trust the studios to keep the ICT flag off.

To take advantage of the new audio in the digital realm I would need a receiver capable of doing DD+, DTS HD, etc., so that would be money there too.

I tend to focus more on the video, but I assumed the audio improvement would be commensurate with the video improvement.

Part of my decision to get the OPPO was to keep me from buying into HD too early. Upconverting was something I needed at the time. I hear the Tosh does it well, bit I had always heard it had trouble passing blacker-than-black, so that kept me away at the time.

I would imagine any HD discs I would eventually own would just replace their SD counterpart. I guess my reactions have been more directed at those who feel they must rid themselves of any SD content because of the HD revelation.

I agree they won't.

This is one of the biggest challenges. The small DVD shop I had been frequenting had an XA1 connected to a 50" Pioneer plasma, I assume with component cables. The display is in a less than ideal physical area of the store, and has probably seen many 1000's of hours of use being on all day in the store. I saw parts of Last Samurai, and while it of course looked very nice, I wasn't necessarily floored, but I blame this on the conditions of the store and the display. I assume places like Fry's and Magnolia will be a waste of my time. The best solution for me woudl be a trial period in my own HT.

Don't get me wrong, stuff like King Kong, Batman Begins, V For Vendetta, Polar Express and the upcoming Superman Returns make it tempting, but my logical side just can't see making the investment with only 3 major studios supporting HD-DVD, and I don't even want to get into who's doing what on Blu-Ray yet, which seems like a mess.


The low cost of the A1 is what probably made me come the closest to an impulse buy back in April. But I'm trying to stay forward-thinking here. If I eventually shell out $1000 or so for an HDMI 1.3 enabled XA2, at least I won't have to get a new player when I get a receiver that also has 1.3. (I assume 1.3 is needed on both ends to pass the next-gen audio via the HDMI cable).

As far as Blu-Ray is concerned, I'm not a big fan of Samsung, and if and when I would ever get a Blu player, it would probably be the Pioneer.

Honestly, if I knew both formats would stay around for years and I would just have to maintain two players, I wouldn't care as much, but it's the prospect of one becoming obsoltete that of course makes me (and many others I'm sure) hesitant.

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I am sincerely glad you're enjoying your HD gear.

Bunkaroo,

One more thing you may not be aware of. The HD-A1 can decode the new audio formats and send them out via analog outputs. Most receivers, have these analog inputs and your's probably does as well. I'm enjoying the new audio formats, minus the lossless DTS which isn't available for the HD-A1 yet with my 3 year old receiver.

It is already happening. A good number of releases now come out in one and two disc sets, where the two discer is definitely more desirable. In most cases, the HD or BD version of that disc contains the content found on the double disc release.

I couldn't agree more. I just scrolled through the list of the member who posted that he just hit 100 titles (with another 27 on preorder). Out of those 127 titles, there are nine I would consider, and I already own eight of those nine on DVD.

Further, I bought into SACD precisely because it didn't pander to mainstream pap like DVD-A did. I enjoy my SACD player and the 20+ discs I have, but if I had it to do over again, I probably wouldn't make the investment. I've experienced what happens when there are two competing formats, and I'm not prepared to invest in something like that again until it's clear that there will be one winner, not two losers.

Agreed.

Yes, but the SD consumer still has the option of purchasing the 2-disc set in SD, correct? So, the SD consumer is still able to get what he wants.

Bill Needle was responding to the poster who suggested that studios should or would only put out barebones S-DVDs and put special features only on HD discs, which has not and will not happen.

But what would happen if it did? Would people stop buying DVDs altogether? Somehow, I doubt it. The ones who want the special features would get upset for a little while but would eventually cave-in.

Another possible scenario - what would happen if the studios intentionally lowered the bitrates of SD DVDs to make the picture quality differences more apparent?

I've never really seen buying anything that I have enjoyed as an investment.

The situation as it stands, and as pressed by the Hd-dvd companies, is that prices will come down on the discs and they will be able to package the HD/SD versions in one package, eliminating the retailers complaints about lack of floor space for three seperate formats. This idea has also been proposed to help give people incentive to upgrade to HD in the future, hence the use of the combo discs.

Right now this is a question of disc yields, cost(as always) and relies on the viability of HD-dvd sticking around long enough to see it all come together.

It's been happening for years and years, nothing new here. Mostly it's been don't give the consumer what they want first out. (Star Wars would be an example of you never get what you want, but that's another world)

I would argue strongly that the specific case of bare bones releases has been very successful (the double-dip world, not the Criterion not releasing anything HD world)

It's been happening for years and years, nothing new here. Mostly it's been give the consumer what they want first out, and then add on some more later to get them buy another version, even if they pretty much know an "extras-super-duper-release-is-coming". And a "limited" re-release? How fast can I get to eBay. There is a market.

And Star Wars would be an example of you never get what you want (to many), but a ton of people still bought it.

They would be giving the customer what they want...at a premium, which is what the two-tiered system is doing right now. I'm glad to see (HD DVD at least) releases with all the extras AND an HD transfer.

Usually pictures of screens don't do justice in hd vs. sd comparisons. I found this today here which actually does. This is the kind of difference I see on my display.

If this doesn't convince you, I don't know what to say. The SD DVD shots are from a progressive scan DVD player, the HD DVD shots are from the Xbox 360 add on (outputting 720p--- not even the full 1080p that is on the disc so it is possible to be even better).

EDIT:
Apparently the HD shots were sharpened a bit... You can look at the speaker grill and the lightswitch for example. You can see that they are sharper in the HD pictures.

However, this is exactly the kind of night and day difference that I see on HD DVD vs SD DVD on my display.

I doubt any "tweaking" of the SD pictures would yield the results seen in the HD version. The detail is obviously not there in the SD versions.
END EDIT.
SD DVD 480p:


HD DVD 720p:


SD DVD 480p:


HD DVD 720p:


SD DVD 480p:


HD DVD 720p:


SD DVD 480p:


HD DVD 720p:

Yup, those pretty much say it all.

Too bad this thread got moved and most of the "SD is good enough" crowd won't see these great comparisons. Good job!

I can't believe people are taking those pictures seriously. They are not large enough to show the difference. At 778 to 800 pixels wide, and with the screen not filling the image, they aren't even big enough to convey the resolution of DVD, let alone HD-DVD.

I think the LOTR comparison shots were much better. I remember there was a thread where people complained that they made the DVD look bad. That was precisely the point: HD can make SD look soft by comparison.

Techy mumbo-jumbo aside (not directed at you Drexl), these comparisons illustrate perfectly the difference I see on my HT system between SD and HD. Really and truly.

I'm another HD-DVD holdout. I have issues with not being able to play discs on other devices, the potential of annoying DRM and not being able to backup discs, cost vs SD-DVD, etc.

A big part of the reason we bought our $378 BF laptop was for watching DVDs on the go, during a trip, etc. We've got 2 PCs, a HTPC project, the laptop, a 7" portable DVD player, etc all that play DVDs.

If I could do a downrez copy of an HD-DVD to DVD I might consider it, or if they get the single-sided combo discs out in the market (which, I might add, many videophiles detest and are ranting about). Or if they had the balls to issue 2-disc sets with an HD-DVD and maybe a barebones DVD version with it (they're too afraid of losing normal DVD sales, though).

Also, I am strictly against DRM crap. Although it seems less likely every day that they actually implement the HDCP flag, it is there, and they could.

In my case, SD-DVD is good enough - but a majority of the reason for holding out is actually because I don't like the way they've rolled out HD-DVD/BR. DRM, already many DVD players in the house, HD discs won't play on normal DVD drives, and no reasonably priced PC drive yet - and if there is a PC drive, it will probably require Windows Vista and an HDCP protected video card - what a bunch of crap.

Well, all of it will be OOP someday. I can only hope.

And, frankly, the most noticeable difference on the first and last sets of screencaps on the previous page appears to be the contrast cranked way too high on the HD-DVD shots. The middle two sets provide a much better...uh...contrast.

Yeah, that OOP status is really driving the prices of all those old VHS tapes and LDs into the stratosphere

DVD had this issue at first as well.

DVD has DRM that prevents making "backup" discs as well.

DVD initially cost more than VHS also. The question really shouldn't be, "does this cost more than DVD?", but rather, "is HD worth the extra cost?" For an increase in image resolution, color, and sound quality, the cost is definitely worth it for some.

And eventually, all of those will be able to play HD discs as you upgrade. I doubt you started off with 6 of more DVD-capable devices.

many videophiles detest the current TWIN design since both SD DVD and HD DVD would only get one layer for their date each, which would be undersized for most movies, at least on the SD layer. The triple-layer TWIN in development might supplant the current double-sided combo disc, but it wouldn't solve the other main complaint about the combo discs: that they cost more for the added value of an SD DVD version that the majority don't want. So your opinion of wanting both is in the minority, at least among the videophiles.

The double-sided combo discs out now really have the same amount of appeal, and they aren't exactly stealing a large number of purchases away from SD DVDs. In fact, pretty much every HD disc release is going to steal some purchases away from SD DVD, since some people would still be buying the SD DVD versions if the HD versions didn't exist.

The reason they don't put a movie on two separate discs in one release is because that essentially means they've given you two copies of the film.

Hold on, how is the number of DVD players in your house a fault of the rollout for HD disc? Should they have waited until you inexplicably started having less DVD capable devices?

The same could've been said about DVDs not playable on existing VCD or LD players or in CD-ROM drives. Even if the HD content was put on an SD DVD disc, there'd be no way a standard DVD player could decode the information.

However, there do exist HD DVDs with SD DVD sides. If people actually bought into HD DVD and supported the combo discs more than the current videophiles are, it might become much more standard.

Your "at first", "initially" and "eventually" just backs up why he is waiting.

Seems reasonable to me also, although I'm still waiting based on price and catalog.

This bears repeating on the HD/SD "screenshots":

1. No photo that size can portray the difference.
2. These photos are manipulated as the HD ones are sharpened via Photoshop or some other image editing program.

3. The above two statements cancel each other out as the pictures give you an idea of what the SD/HD difference would look like.

You mean ICT flag. HDCP is already in use.

That makes no sense at all.

Yup

Didn't say I wouldn't do it. Just not useful enough IMO right now. I'm not interested in paying a price premium for a disc I can only play on one single player in my living room. Maybe if the players were cheaper I might consider it.

That said, I'm a LOTR whore. I can see myself spending $200-$400 on an HD-DVD player and Fellowship in hi-def. Of course, I already have my 2nd favorite movie ever, Eternal Sunshine, stored on the DVR in HD indefinitely.

I really think, though, that these are going to stay a niche format for some time, like Laser Disc. I could be wrong, though.