When the rival formats of SACD and DVD-A were announced, there was much talk of "It's VHS vs BETA all over again, and there were similarities. There are also similarities with the current HD DVD vs BD format war, but not many - the only main one is that we have two rival formats.

In the case of VHS vs BETA, we have two formats which can both play on the same machine - and we currently have a dual-format player released, and another on the books.

Of course, both DVD-A and SACD can, and do, play on dual format machines. "However that's not important", say some. "Both high def audio formats have failed due to customer confusion", and unless we have a winning format here, we'll have the same again with high def video.

Is that true?

Well, first thing's first, I haven't seen a shred of evidence to suggest that it is true. I've yet to read, or hear of of one person who's been put out off buying a dual-format high def audio player because they're confused about a format war. Indeed, for myself I avoided buying such a player until dual-format became available, and then felt completely safe in the knowledge that, if one of the formats went belly-up, my player would still be a worthwhile investment.

So why have SACD and DVD-A failed? And will high def video go the same way?

Well, the first reason high def audio failed is that it's not wanted. That is to say, not enough people want it. High def audio is not as easy as high def video to demonstrate. Think of the Toshiba 'Greek' demo you might have seen in COMET (UK CE store). How easy would it be to set up a similar side-by-side high def audio comparison? Virtually impossible within the constraints of COMET, I'd offer.

The second reason high def audio has failed is that it's not easy to appreciate the difference on a lot of equipment. The advantages of high def audio over standard CD are not huge on a 'normal' hi-fi (compared to an audiophile one).

And perhaps most importantly, and a point often missed, is that most people don't listen to their music on hi-fi equipment at all! Most music listening is done in the kitchen whilst cooking (etc), in the car, or on a personal stereo. None of these products is designed to show the full benefit of high def audio, particularly in the final link of the audio chain - the speakers. Very, very little listening is done sat on a couch, with a decent audiophile hi-fi in front of the listener. Indeed, I'd suggest that less than 1% of music listening is done in this environment.

In the kitchen speakers will almost certainly be bookshelf types, without the full range to show off the lower end of the increased audio spectrum (and there's no way they'll have 'super tweeters'), and poorly placed. Car speakers are 'okay' at best, often listened to in a position way off centre, often with a person's leg in front of one of the speakers, and with sound coming from 4 speakers (2 front, two back) which aren't identical, and where it's impossible to set up the balance/fader so that the sound is correct for everyone in the car. All competing with the associated noise of motoring, naturally.

As for the personal stereo, the £5 in-ear buds that reproduce most music in these situations are not ideal for spotting the difference between CD mp3, let alone CD and high def audio.

Is there a comparison here with high def video? I don't think so. A person with a £600 32" CRT will notice a pretty major improvement with high def on a £600 HD Ready 32" LCD, particularly as they'll be viewing this in COMET at a closer distance than they'd usually sit at home. And unlike audio, comparatively little watching is done in the kitchen, in the car, or on the bus. I'd suggest 75%+ of DVD watching is done on a sofa, watching a decent TV.

Finally, I'd offer that, for those of us bothered about high def audio, SACD & DVD-A haven't completely failed. We still get high def audio on a number of releases - many of you probably have hybrid SACDs at home without even knowing it.

The only real 'failure' for us is the lack of software. But already it doesn't look like this will be replicated with high def video. Look at the 10 biggest blockbuster DVD releases so far this year, and I'll bet you'll find that a good number (if not all) have been released (or are planned for release) on HD DVD, BD, or both. That was never the case with SACD/DVD-A at any point in it's history! How many CD Top 10 lists of the year have ever had more than 2 titles in them which were available in DVD-A and/or SACD?

In other words, the main reason for DVD-A/SACD's failure was the lack of software, and this is simply not evident with high def video. We might want more, but we're getting a lot of (most?) big new titles in high def, which we never did with high def audio.

There is only customer confusion about HD DVD and BD whilst the future of the format war is in doubt. In short, no-one wants to become MR. BEETAMAX.

If and when affordable dual-format devices become readily available, it will be in the interests of both formats and all studios to play down any differences, and play up the fact that their discs will play on any new High Def Video player. It will end confusion, and increase disc sales.

So, I don't see any evidence whatsoever that a dual-format future is not only possible, but also desirable and likely.

Steve W

The second reason high def audio has failed is that it's not easy to appreciate the difference on a lot of equipment. The advantages of high def audio over standard CD are not huge on a 'normal' hi-fi (compared to an audiophile one).

Steve W


This is exactly where HD video sits in the scheme of things. The average person (and they are the vast majority of us) can't tell the difference between DVD and HD on a 100" screen. They are perfectly happy with DVD and they own all the catalog that they wanted.

This is exactly where HD video sits in the scheme of things. The average person (and they are the vast majority of us) can't tell the difference between DVD and HD on a 100" screen. They are perfectly happy with DVD and they own all the catalog that they wanted.


If they can't tell the difference, then it's because they haven't 'seen' the difference. On a properly setup 1080p 100" display, the difference is earth-shaking. And if you do a split screen on a 50" 1080p plasma, then even my grandmother can see the difference.

The 'Greek' disc I spoke of is a demo disc from Toshiba.

If you go in one of the big UK chains you'll often see a Toshiba HD-E1 (UK version of the A2) hooked up to a Tosh 32" (or larger) LCD, playing the disc. It is great, and has a 'simulation' (eg, doctored) comparison of SD v HD. The difference is very clear.

Indeed, it's too clear. The SD is doctored too much. All HD LCDs will de-interlace an 'i' picture to show a progressive one - I think this effectively shows a simulated 480i picture (really progressive, but every other line is 'off').

It's a cheat of sorts, but it works.

Anyone can see the difference, and in a way which it would be impossible to demonstrate with high def audio in such a store.

But I think the key point is the titles.

SACD/DVD-A launched in about '99, I think, How many Top 10 albums from the last 8 years have appeared on SACD/DVD-A?

I would imagine that more Top 10 filoms have appeared on BD/HD DVD already.

Steve W

I think that all the points made above are accurate, but the main reason DVDA and SACD died was lack of push from both hardware and software manufacturers (it was clear at least 1 year before Sony pulled out of making software for SACD).

I think that the reason for pulling out was that there was a better alternative up ahead that was worth a fight and could kill two birds with one stone: HDMI and HD format disks. Both HD audio and HD video, and 1 "simple" cable to hook them up.

And the user will have to buy a new TV, and a new receiver, and new cables, and new software, etc. Better than the DVD revolution.

Who could blame them for ditching those Audio only formats?

In my opinion, two formats are unnecessary and inconvenient. This is not like DVD-Audio (PCM) vs. Super Audio CD (DSD). We don't need two formats, so I don't want combos to be the future.

Pecker, that was a very well thought out argument. However, you left out one important fact: SIX INTERCONNECTS! What were they thinking?

Doug

In my opinion, two formats are unnecessary and inconvenient. This is not like DVD-Audio (PCM) vs. Super Audio CD (DSD). We don't need two formats, so I don't want combos to be the future.

It won't be two formats.

It'll be one format, as far as the retailers and public are concerned.

High Def Disc.

It won't matter if it's a BD or a HD DVD, it'll be called High Def Disc (or similar), and will play on High Def Disc players.

The only people who need to look at the little symbol on the back will be early adopters - many (most?) of whom are dual-format anyway. And they won't be at a loss. They'll still be able to play one format - just like when they first bought a player.

The studios will only have to produce one format of each film.

The retailers will only have to have one High Def Disc section, with each film in one format only.

That's the beauty of it.

Indeed, has anyone thought this could be an advantage?

A big joint press conference announcing THE FORMAT WAR IS OVER would be excellent publicity, happening at a time just as the early adopter market is becoming saturated, and ready to break into the mainstream. That's the kind of publicity that money can't buy.

Who would it not suite?

Sony & co can release on BD. They keep their extra security measures and regional coding.

Other studios can release on the cheaper HD DVD format. Unless that have a film requiring bags of space, then they can put out a BD.

Early adopters are no worse off. Your PS3 will still play BDs. Your Toshiba will still play HD DVDs.

But if you want to play the other format you need a second player - just like now (so you're no worse off).

Only the second player will be dual-format and only cost from $100 upwards.

How can anyone not like this solution? The only people it doesn't suite is anyone at either HD DVD or BD headquarters who'll only bew happy with an outright win. But here's the rub. If neither sides 'loses', and as long as both exist, we have a format war which frightens off punters. Both sides will make more money from a dual-format future than from an ongoing format war situation which alienates the public.

Steve W

This is exactly where HD video sits in the scheme of things. The average person (and they are the vast majority of us) can't tell the difference between DVD and HD on a 100" screen. They are perfectly happy with DVD and they own all the catalog that they wanted.

There's a huge difference between DVD and HD on 110" screen provided you are using a 720p or 1080p display. So much so, I'd be willing to bet I'd see the difference with a 720p/1080i display with a 50" screen. Granted anything smaller in size may or may not make a difference but you need to at the maximum available resolution available to the system.

It's been my experience that anything less than a "true" (not upsampled) 720p/1080i display on a 110" screen has serious issues. Which means I have issues watching DVDs and standard def TV broadcasts.

There's a huge difference between DVD and HD on 110" screen provided you are using a 720p or 1080p display. So much so, I'd be willing to bet I'd see the difference with a 720p/1080i display with a 50" screen. Granted anything smaller in size may or may not make a difference but you need to at the maximum available resolution available to the system.

It's been my experience that anything less than a "true" (not upsampled) 720p/1080i display on a 110" screen has serious issues. Which means I have issues watching DVDs and standard def TV broadcasts.


I agree 100%. If u cant see a difference you have some extremely bad vision and should get your eyes checked. Most people who say they cant see a difference really can, but are using that as an excuse because A) they can't afford a 1080p tv or B)are cheap mofo's who only justify spending money on things they consider "needs". Even my 85 year old grandmother was impressed with pq on bd's, so much so that she bought a new 1080p tv and is looking into buying a high def player.

Just to throw in my 2 cents about dual formats existing in the long run. If this is the case consumers will never see really cheap price tags on players or movies as they do now with dvd. The reason being it costs more for manufactures to produce combo disks and combo players. As a consumer i dont like the idea at all. Can u imagine how much a hybrid game system and hyprid video games would cost? Forget it. One format needs to prevail for both the consumer and the manufactures sake.

This is exactly where HD video sits in the scheme of things. The average person (and they are the vast majority of us) can't tell the difference between DVD and HD on a 100" screen. They are perfectly happy with DVD and they own all the catalog that they wanted.

Totally agree, and when you consider most down or will not ever own a 100" screen, well you get the picture.

I agree 100%. If u cant see a difference you have some extremely bad vision and should get your eyes checked. Most people who say they cant see a difference really can, but are using that as an excuse because A) they can't afford a 1080p tv or B)are cheap mofo's who only justify spending money on things they consider "needs". Even my 85 year old grandmother was impressed with pq on bd's, so much so that she bought a new 1080p tv and is looking into buying a high def player.


Again I don't think that they don't see a difference, I have just found most that I have shown really can't see that BIG a difference to warrant a purchase. This is just my observation.

Impressive with your 85 year old grandma but come on man she is not the norm. My grandmother still doesn't have cable and could NEVER see spending that much on anything for herself. Now for her grandkids, now that is a different story.

So why have SACD and DVD-A failed? And will high def video go the same way?

Well, the first reason high def audio failed is that it's not wanted. That is to say, not enough people want it. High def audio is not as easy as high def video to demonstrate. Think of the Toshiba 'Greek' demo you might have seen in COMET (UK CE store). How easy would it be to set up a similar side-by-side high def audio comparison? Virtually impossible within the constraints of COMET, I'd offer.

The second reason high def audio has failed is that it's not easy to appreciate the difference on a lot of equipment. The advantages of high def audio over standard CD are not huge on a 'normal' hi-fi (compared to an audiophile one).


Completely agree, which is why BR/HDDVD is NOT like SACD/DVD-A!

Simon

This is exactly where HD video sits in the scheme of things. The average person (and they are the vast majority of us) can't tell the difference between DVD and HD on a 100" screen. They are perfectly happy with DVD and they own all the catalog that they wanted.

Sorry, but this is simply not true. Anyone with the proper equipment, or with reasonable eyesight, can tell the difference on HDTVs far smaller than 100". I don't disagree that there is an educational element, but this is more about appreciating what is possible with BR/HDDVD than seeing what is!

Just to throw in my 2 cents about dual formats existing in the long run. If this is the case consumers will never see really cheap price tags on players or movies as they do now with dvd. The reason being it costs more for manufactures to produce combo disks and combo players. As a consumer i dont like the idea at all. Can u imagine how much a hybrid game system and hyprid video games would cost? Forget it. One format needs to prevail for both the consumer and the manufactures sake.

Not true at all in the long run. They have a single pickup that can read both disk types. For the players it would become no different cost-wise than reading DVD+R, DVD-R, DVD-RW and CD, and all the players, even the dirt cheap ones, do that. Hybrid disks won't be necessary because if the players play both disk types, they only need to make one type, either HD or BD. The only people affected would be early adopters who weren't supporting both formats, but then they went into the format war knowing that they'd have limited access to content. Video game systems are not an issue because they could be made with the same dual pickups to play both disk types for movies, again with negligible added cost, but they still would only play their own game software. I don't really care if they make combo players or hybrid disks, as long as they can do HD-30 and BD-50 on the disks, but the hybrid disks will always cost more to make than either HD or BD (this will shrink to < $1.00/disk difference but won't become zero). If all players are dual, then who cares what happens with the disks, as long as the quality is there.

Sorry, but this is simply not true. Anyone with the proper equipment, or with reasonable eyesight, can tell the difference on HDTVs far smaller than 100". I don't disagree that there is an educational element, but this is more about appreciating what is possible with BR/HDDVD than seeing what is!

a. few people have proper equipment, even if you take the HDTV ownership estimates as fact, it includes 26" tvs, 32" tvs, and unless you are sitting with your face to the screen it just won't be extremely noticable between a good upconvert and HD.

b. HD capable audio is still no cheaper for the common man even if the displays are within reach. None of my friends or family think its even remotely wise to spend $1000+ on sound for movies. audio is one of the big improvements on hd disk and one of the selling points, but once you add up the price of the full HD experience, a 42" or bigger display, a decient Audio system with speakers and reciever, and one or both HD formats, plus the other added costs of broadcast HDTV. (most people aren't putting up an antenna or even know to plug the tv into the cable to see whats in the clear) even budget shopping you can run yourself into good used car territory, and that isn't acceptable for most. People will buy a TV and thats their big investment and call dvds good enough simply because they can't afford the rest.

SQ may be a big improvement for you and me, but is was also a big improvement for you and me with DVD over VHS.

Most people upgraded to DVD from VHS without a surround system, or even speakers seperate to the ones in their TVs.

Your parallel falls down.

I think HIGH DEF is for a niche market. Not a tiny niche, but a niche all the same - think of it as maybe double that of LaserDisc. Now we had loads of LD releases - I'd be happy if high def managed that!

We're not talking about the much maligned J6P. We're talking about people who'd buy a Toshiba or Denon DVD payer instead of a no-name job made in Hong Kong by King Kong.

You know, us!

The market is too small to start with to continue a format war. And it's too small to start p***ing off a part of it.

Imagine this niche. Now imagine it, but take away a lot of HD DVD early-adopters who can't play their old discs on the new players.

If you can make dual-format players cheaply enough, that's too big a proportion of your niche to p*** off, for the sake of what will be maybe $50-$100 per player.

Steve W

Sorry, but this is simply not true. Anyone with the proper equipment, or with reasonable eyesight, can tell the difference on HDTVs far smaller than 100". I don't disagree that there is an educational element, but this is more about appreciating what is possible with BR/HDDVD than seeing what is!


I would have to agree. My 80 year old father, the most anti technology person I know, can easily see the difference. I just installed a 46" Samsung DLP at his house. He marvels at how good golf tournaments look. I gave him a demo of Blu Ray versus DVD with Planet Earth. He can easily see the difference and likes the high def presentation better. When a dual format player comes out, he will be getting a Christmas present from me. But, I can't involve him when he has to understand the difference between HD-DVD and BD. To him, he needs to be able to go to a video store, pick up a video of his choice, and play it without any tech knowledge. Place the disk in the player and press play. The disk can be DVD, BD, HD-DVD. He can't know.

I would have to agree. My 80 year old father, the most anti technology person I know, can easily see the difference. I just installed a 46" Samsung DLP at his house. He marvels at how good golf tournaments look. I gave him a demo of Blu Ray versus DVD with Planet Earth. He can easily see the difference and likes the high def presentation better. When a dual format player comes out, he will be getting a Christmas present from me. But, I can't involve him when he has to understand the difference between HD-DVD and BD. To him, he needs to be able to go to a video store, pick up a video of his choice, and play it without any tech knowledge. Place the disk in the player and press play. The disk can be DVD, BD, HD-DVD. He can't know.

I must confess, I do find it strange that so many people say the differences between BR/HDDVD and DVD are not that significant when, to my eyes, they are dramatic! Almost makes me wonder whether many people who claim minimal difference have actually not seen BR or HDDVD - cannot reasonably explain their position otherwise!

My 80 year old father, the most anti technology person I know, can easily see the difference. I just installed a 46" Samsung DLP at his house.

I have to be honest, I wonder just how 'anti technology' someone is who allows someone else to install a 46" rear-projector TV in their house. :confused:

My dad isn't anti-technology (he uses the internet, etc), but you'd be hard-pushed to get him to accept anything bigger than 32" in his lounge.

Still, each to their own.

Steve W

I know I am a geek here but the audio 2 formats should have made it farther than they did. At $15 a title the SACD's and DVD Audio were not any more expensive than buying a cd. Most people already have 5.1 setups in their home due to dvd. Granted many sacd's are stereo even though there are many more sacd's than dvd-a discs available. Many inexpensive dvd players were universal. Take the seal's GH dvd audio disc. It is a dvd-a disc with the 2 cd's gh version on it at a cheaper price. The standard and acoustic versions gh all rolled into one and about $8 cheaper than the 2 disc cd set at $15 compared to $23. I think the main problem was titles were geared toward the jazz crowd in sacd and the 70's rock crowd with dvd audio as many of the titles will show. Granted teens were not going to buy dvd audio or sacd players, but more mainstream titles were needed. saying it is a niche product now is definitely an understatement.

I think lots of people with SACD/DVD-A players don't realise they have them.

Meanwhile, the software support for both formats was utter pants.

Like I said, since 2000, how many Top 10 albums have had a high-def audio release?

Steve W

It's like 78rpm vs 45rpm.

They had a format war for 2 years, 1948-1950, until some bright spark made a turntable that played both. No-one mentioned the words 'format war' again, and both formats peacefully co-existed until the early '60's.

You can still buy record players that will play 78s to this day.

What's the difference with BD & HD DVD?

You won't have to press a button on the front of the player to tell it which format has been inserted.

Steve W

If they can't tell the difference, then it's because they haven't 'seen' the difference. On a properly setup 1080p 100" display, the difference is earth-shaking. And if you do a split screen on a 50" 1080p plasma, then even my grandmother can see the difference.

Why do these types of displays have to be setup/adjusted/calibrated for people to see the difference. Was it necessary to setup regular old TV sets too? I've never heard of 'setup' until visiting this forum.

Sorry, but this is simply not true. Anyone with the proper equipment, or with reasonable eyesight, can tell the difference on HDTVs far smaller than 100". I don't disagree that there is an educational element, but this is more about appreciating what is possible with BR/HDDVD than seeing what is!

I'll be the contrarian here. I have a 120 inch 16x9 screen with a Seleco 720P projector - an HT300-extra. I really love new stuff. The addition of HD-DVD didn't add a whole lot. Its marginally better than DVD through my Denon 3910. There colors are a little better, which helps the most with dark scenes. The sharpness is about the same.

I've spent some time with direct comparisons with movies like MI-2 and Swordfish. The difference isn't all that dramatic. Switching between the two often causes confusion on which is which. They look different, but its hard to say one is better all the time.

A few reasons for speculation. These are good looking movies to start with. My projector is 4 years old and "only" 720p. My upconverting DVD player is very good. I spend a ton of time calibrating my upconverting DVD player - out of the box it didn't look good at all.

With this in mind, I'm confident that if I brought the HD-DVD player upstairs and tried it on my 42 inch plasma, there would be no noticeable difference.

I be most people are comparing a junk upconverting player.

It doesn´t matter if you have the best DVD player inte the world upscaling a DVD.
IT WILL NEVER COME CLOSE TO HD.

Sure it looks good upconverted but you sure as hell can tell the diffrence ;)

But when it comes to the "normal" public, you know people NOT into this Home theater thing, they CAN see that HD is better than SD.
BUT do they care?? Most of them don´t and never will.

I have had friends over to watch some HD-DVD:s and Blu-Ray movies. And sure as hell they think it looks AWESOME. But most of them don´t care about it and are satisfied with DVD because they just want to watch the MOVIE and don´t care if they don´t see EVERY detail in the actors face or the backgrounds.

I personally LOVE the ability to see ALL the details in the picture, but then again, I´m a home theater freak that want´s the picture to be 100 procent perfect ;)

It doesn´t matter if you have the best DVD player inte the world upscaling a DVD.
IT WILL NEVER COME CLOSE TO HD.

Sure it looks good upconverted but you sure as hell can tell the diffrence ;)



For movies, on my equipment, the impact of HD-DVD is minimal. There is only so much in a movie to capture. If anyone is in Michigan, I'll show you in person.

The HD-DVD player was under $400, so it wasn't a huge dissapointment. If I had paid $1500 for this player, I'd be really upset. If I were on a budget and had to choose between a Subwoofer and an HD-DVD player, I'd take the sub for sure. That is the choice many people will need to make.

For movies, on my equipment, the impact of HD-DVD is minimal. There is only so much in a movie to capture. If anyone is in Michigan, I'll show you in person.

The HD-DVD player was under $400, so it wasn't a huge dissapointment. If I had paid $1500 for this player, I'd be really upset. If I were on a budget and had to choose between a Subwoofer and an HD-DVD player, I'd take the sub for sure. That is the choice many people will need to make.

Since you didn't mention your equipment... I'm assuming that you don't have a 1080p display. Because I can assure you that the impact of HD-DVD, and BD for that matter, is far more than 'mininal', on a 1080p capable display.

a. few people have proper equipment, even if you take the HDTV ownership estimates as fact, it includes 26" tvs, 32" tvs, and unless you are sitting with your face to the screen it just won't be extremely noticable between a good upconvert and HD.

I can second that. In my small family room, I recently got rid of my HD cable box due to price increase and instead decided to try "sharing" my HD Tivo from my media room with the family room TV. I bought a RF modulator and took the s-video out from the HD Tivo (the media room TV gets HD signal from component) to the modulator and up to the media room TV where it is put on channel 3. I then bought a RF extender for my remote and bought a second Tivo remote. So, I am getting HD programming downrexzzed to SD from the Tivo, modulated to channel 3 on my 32" LCD, although it is in the proper 16X9 aspect ratio. My wife and two kids watched TV for several days before I told them it wasn't HD. They didn't care and couldn't tell enough difference to matter. Although I told myself I could, it was still a very pleasing picture. Interesting.

I can second that. In my small family room, I recently got rid of my HD cable box due to price increase and instead decided to try "sharing" my HD Tivo from my media room with the family room TV. I bought a RF modulator and took the s-video out from the HD Tivo (the media room TV gets HD signal from component) to the modulator and up to the media room TV where it is put on channel 3. I then bought a RF extender for my remote and bought a second Tivo remote. So, I am getting HD programming downrexzzed to SD from the Tivo, modulated to channel 3 on my 32" LCD, although it is in the proper 16X9 aspect ratio. My wife and two kids watched TV for several days before I told them it wasn't HD. They didn't care and couldn't tell enough difference to matter. Although I told myself I could, it was still a very pleasing picture. Interesting.

Again, size matters. Of course HD impact is going to be less appearant on a 32" TV compared to say... a 100" TV. Even 480p looks pretty fantastic on a 4" LCD.

It doesn´t matter if you have the best DVD player inte the world upscaling a DVD.
IT WILL NEVER COME CLOSE TO HD.

I have had friends over to watch some HD-DVD:s and Blu-Ray movies. And sure as hell they think it looks AWESOME. But most of them don´t care about it and are satisfied with DVD because they just want to watch the MOVIE and don´t care if they don´t see EVERY detail in the actors face or the backgrounds.

Agree completely with your first point - go to any BB or CC and compare DVD with BR/HDDVD on any of their abysmally calibarted sets and you can tell a difference. I really do think anyone who cannot honestly tell a difference on their HT system (w/ reasonable screen size) has a technical problem!

As to your second point ... rewind 10 years and 'experts' were arguing the same point about consumer indiference to DVD (versus VHS) in predicitng its market failure. While it may take a bit of time to sort out format confusion, I fully expect HD-on-disc to be a long-term sucess.

IMeanwhile, the software support for both formats was utter pants.

I take it this is a bad thing?

Even 480p looks pretty fantastic on a 4" LCD.



Hahahahahahahahaha! That was a good laugh!:D

Since you didn't mention your equipment... I'm assuming that you don't have a 1080p display. Because I can assure you that the impact of HD-DVD, and BD for that matter, is far more than 'mininal', on a 1080p capable display.

I did mention my equipment earlier, a 720P projector that is 4 years old. If you are saying you need a 1080p projector to see the difference, I think most people would want to know that, since 1080P i still the exception. I still think the format is only going to get you so much from a film based movie, which everyone surely agrees isn't their best HD source.

I did mention my equipment earlier, a 720P projector that is 4 years old. If you are saying you need a 1080p projector to see the difference, I think most people would want to know that, since 1080P i still the exception. I still think the format is only going to get you so much from a film based movie, which everyone surely agrees isn't their best HD source.

I didn't say you couldn't see the difference on a 720p projector. I said that the difference is less apparent. But the difference is mind-numbingly obvious when viewed on a 1080p projector.

Film based source material can look fantastic in HD, providing the transfer is done correctly. Grand Prix and Forbidden Planet look better than I've ever seen them! Both are older films in which the HD transfers were taken and the picture is exceptional.

I didn't say you couldn't see the difference on a 720p projector. I said that the difference is less apparent. But the difference is mind-numbingly obvious when viewed on a 1080p projector.

All the evidence I've seen from blind tests says you're wrong.

Steve W

All the evidence I've seen from blind tests says you're wrong.

Steve W

Then I would say that the operative word in you statement is 'blind'.

This really seems to be a stupid argument. I have a 720p 118" and the difference is quite dramatic from sd. Some people do say that they don't see that much of a difference. That's ok. They're easier to please.

But people that are really into it notice the difference immediately. No question. They all react the same...amazing.

And I do notice a difference at 1080p up from 720p. Which means that I will be upgrading pretty soon.

So if you don't notice a difference than good for you. I consider you lucky. You're discerning tastes are easier to please. Those blind testers are also more easily satisfied, like you.

But please don't say there isn't much of a difference. That's just plain insulting. Just say that YOU don't see any difference. That's much more believeable and acceptable.

If you think there isn't that much of difference between King Kong hd and sd than great for you.

Then I would say that the operative word in you statement is 'blind'.

Rather than hurling insults at these tests, wouldn't it be a better idea to arrange one of your own?

Steve W

Rather than hurling insults at these tests, wouldn't it be a better idea to arrange one of your own?

Steve W

First off, you never stated or referenced what 'tests' you're talking about, other than 'blind' (beats the hell out of me how you do a "blind" test with 'video'). In fact, your post was quite vague in every regard. Second, "dalcm" is correct, your argument is really stupid. The difference between SD and HD is dramatic.

I have no reason to "arrange" a test of my own. I can see quite clearly the difference between HD-DVD/BD vs. SD DVD. So I really don't know what your point is, other than you're just simply wanting to argue. Either that, or you can't afford to upgrade to HD and so you have to infer that there is no difference in order to make yourself feel good about your own setup.

Sour Grapes?

A lot of points here are well taken. However, This war is not good. Now, it would be great to think that both Sony and Toshiba would play stuff down, humble themselves and move forward. But, if history tells us anything, companies hold steadfast to what they believe and build, and do not move from it.

This whole issue shows that. The fact that we are discussing this shows that. Do you really think that the Circuit City, Best Buy, WalMart and Costcos crowd needs even more confusion?

your argument is really stupid. The difference between SD and HD is dramatic.

That's funny, I don't remember mentioning the difference between SD and HD.

My point was entirely about the difference between 720p and 1080p.

I never said there was no difference between SD and HD.

You've just made a total fool of yourself.

You asked for links:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=767929&page=1

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=799340&page=1

That's 2 independent 'blind' tests on the difference between 720p and 1080p on very large home cinema projection screens, at relatively close seating distances (as close as x1.4 screen widths) using projectors which were as near as possible identical, except the resolution on one was 720p and the other 1080p.

The results? No visible difference.

Steve W

This is exactly where HD video sits in the scheme of things. The average person (and they are the vast majority of us) can't tell the difference between DVD and HD on a 100" screen. They are perfectly happy with DVD and they own all the catalog that they wanted.
thats not true ! the average person can tell the difference,i see people at bestbuy all the time gathered around the bd or hd display saying how great the picture looks. the average person isnt as dumb as you think!

That's funny, I don't remember mentioning the difference between SD and HD.

My point was entirely about the difference between 720p and 1080p.

I never said there was no difference between SD and HD.

You've just made a total fool of yourself.

You asked for links:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=767929&page=1

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=799340&page=1

That's 2 independent 'blind' tests on the difference between 720p and 1080p on very large home cinema projection screens, at relatively close seating distances (as close as x1.4 screen widths) using projectors which were as near as possible identical, except the resolution on one was 720p and the other 1080p.

The results? No visible difference.

Steve W

Neither was a true blind test because of equipment differences. The 2nd didn't even have a 1080p source. But in both instances differences were apparent. In the first one they implied that only a few were fooled.

The equipment differences were virtually zero, apart from the resolution.

And in the first one only 1 person from (I believe) 42 claimed to spot a difference - and he was one of only 2 people in the room who knew which was which!

Steve W

thats not true ! the average person can tell the difference,i see people at bestbuy all the time gathered around the bd or hd display saying how great the picture looks. the average person isnt as dumb as you think!

I was at BB yesterday and a couple was buying a plasma TV (50" I think), and the sales person was showing them a Blu-Ray demonstration where the video was showing the difference between DVD and HD on a similar plasma. The couple responded with something like "wow that is amazing....but the DVD looks really good too." They agreed that SD-DVD on their TV was going to be a good enough boost for them and they did not need HD. (I must admit too that with my setup at home SD-DVD does look amazing on my 50" plasma so I can't disagree with their decision).

So right now, that is the big problem for Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. Is the improved picture quality big enough to justify the cost? Even though people can see the difference do they care? For this one couple the answer was 'no'.

This really seems to be a stupid argument. I have a 720p 118" and the difference is quite dramatic from sd. Some people do say that they don't see that much of a difference. That's ok. They're easier to please.

But people that are really into it notice the difference immediately. No question. They all react the same...amazing.

And I do notice a difference at 1080p up from 720p. Which means that I will be upgrading pretty soon.

So if you don't notice a difference than good for you. I consider you lucky. You're discerning tastes are easier to please. Those blind testers are also more easily satisfied, like you.

But please don't say there isn't much of a difference. That's just plain insulting. Just say that YOU don't see any difference. That's much more believeable and acceptable.

If you think there isn't that much of difference between King Kong hd and sd than great for you.

Actually, I'm really quite picky. I think there are a couple of things.

First - movies can only look so good. I don't think anyone will say a HD-DVD movie looks as good as a live NFL game is HD.

Second, I said my Denon 3910 upconverting and after calibration looks very close to HD DVD. I doubt many people dropped $1300 on an upconverting DVD player. My system is a 119 screen, and it is very close for movies, and that is all there is on this format. Maybe when they re-do these movies in a year they will look better.

I think there is basically no difference compared with a recorded HD movie over satellite. Finally, I think MI-3 looks terrible on HD-DVD, and that really stinks.

If I could do it again, I'd save the cash. Certainly anyone with a 42 or 50 plasma is just wasting their cash on HD DVD.

I'm very happy for you.

If I could do it again, I'd save the cash. Certainly anyone with a 42 or 50 plasma is just wasting their cash on HD DVD.

And obviously, that's more a difference of opinion, than difference of picture quality.

And obviously, that's more a difference of opinion, than difference of picture quality.


That's how I read it.

Interesting thoughts, I heard the porn industry is leaning toward HD DVD (less investment in new equipment) and they account for 30% of all DVD sales in the world, so me thinks which ever standard they adopt will be the one that wins.

But, do you really want to see every pimple on your favourite porn stars butt?

Interesting thoughts, I heard the porn industry is leaning toward HD DVD (less investment in new equipment) and they account for 30% of all DVD sales in the world, so me thinks which ever standard they adopt will be the one that wins.

But, do you really want to see every pimple on your favourite porn stars butt?

Sure! that's not wrong is it? ;)

And obviously, that's more a difference of opinion, than difference of picture quality.

This is a forum with opinions, so yes an opinion. But it is based on the premise that there would be little perceptible quality difference on that sized screen. Even the magazine editors qualify this.

EverDog,

This is exactly why the AV or High End industry does not need this war now. With our specialty stores and know how, we could show these type of consumers what to expect, and why they should invest. Most people want to hit the power button, press play, and call it day. They do not want to go home and tweak, fiddle, measure, etc. This entertainment at its finest, and the easier it is, the better.

Why do you think AMX, CRESTRON, LUTRON, and the rest do so well. When their finished, then even the wife, can operate the system. Now you want to throw in HD DVD vs. BlU - RAY? I can not expect a BB or CC salesman, at least from what I`ve seen here in New york, to move these clients to the next level.

Whether they lack knowledge, experience or are too young, its not happening. And its a shame, because this would be the time for us, but, we have this format war. WHY?

Everdog,

I say again, this is exactly why we do not need a format war. You have customers like you described, who want to go home, push power and play, and enjoy. With one format, our expertise, this would be a much better story.
Lets see how it will play out.

I think the average consumer can see the difference but as has been stated before they don't care about the difference. I believe DVD's took off cause they didn't wear out like tapes did (and you didn't have to rewind them :)). But as far as HD video goes it's going to stay a niche market cause J6P doesn't care. Everyone that has seen my HD video basicaly says its clearer so what, it's still the same movie.

I must confess, I do find it strange that so many people say the differences between BR/HDDVD and DVD are not that significant when, to my eyes, they are dramatic! Almost makes me wonder whether many people who claim minimal difference have actually not seen BR or HDDVD - cannot reasonably explain their position otherwise!

A lot of things can play a factor:
1. Owner doesn't know you need component/HDMI cable to get HD & just use composite or S video.
2. Owner thinks HDTV's will turn regular cable into HD cable
3. Owner buys upconverting players cause it says 'Hi Def' on the box
4. Owner thinks he is already watching in HD cause it says so before his show/sporting event comes on..

a. few people have proper equipment, even if you take the HDTV ownership estimates as fact, it includes 26" tvs, 32" tvs, and unless you are sitting with your face to the screen it just won't be extremely noticable between a good upconvert and HD.

b. HD capable audio is still no cheaper for the common man even if the displays are within reach. None of my friends or family think its even remotely wise to spend $1000+ on sound for movies. audio is one of the big improvements on hd disk and one of the selling points, but once you add up the price of the full HD experience, a 42" or bigger display, a decient Audio system with speakers and reciever, and one or both HD formats, plus the other added costs of broadcast HDTV. (most people aren't putting up an antenna or even know to plug the tv into the cable to see whats in the clear) even budget shopping you can run yourself into good used car territory, and that isn't acceptable for most. People will buy a TV and thats their big investment and call dvds good enough simply because they can't afford the rest.
I disagree.. I tried my Toshiba with my 26inch HDTV. CRT. I was watching from 3 FT away & COR still looked gorgeous. I also compared the SD version to the HD version & could easily notice a difference.. Main reason.. The blacks are so wow on HD DVDs especially on a CRT.. Beats my LCD silly in that department..

This is NOT a format war.

It is a LICENSING war. Sides have already been chosen or abstained.

It is not about consumer convenience, ubiquitous playability, format clarity, robust audio, 720p vs 1080p perceptibility or any other technical limitation.

It is about publishing licensing and each camp wants their chosen 'format' to succeed purely for business model reasons, nothing more. The dollar at work…

Ironically, in the send the consumer will force the issue as they ALWAYS have and THEY will chose the format or, perhaps more likely, force the compromise.

The hybrid player is most likely that mitigating factor. The consumer will buy it because they simply DON'T CARE format.

Ideals over 'one format' at this point are largely irrelevant. Choosing one camp or another is again a fairly futile effort. One will win, one won't then everyone, regardless of camp, will… … …wait for it… … … make a hybrid player. Shawking!

The winners of the most concessions will be the consumer in the end. Those that reap the most benefit will be the companies that make the 'best' hybrid players. And if they can get them within 10-15% of cost, it starts to become a frugality 'no brainer'.

This is exactly where HD video sits in the scheme of things. The average person (and they are the vast majority of us) can't tell the difference between DVD and HD on a 100" screen. They are perfectly happy with DVD and they own all the catalog that they wanted.
bingo.

100" or 60" or 46" or 32"

if you have to EXPLAIN IMPROVEMENTS to a customer of a mass-market device then you are destined to fail.

You guys could not be more wrong, at least in my experience.

I have a small 37" Panasonic Plasma, and my girlfriend who knows nothing about any of this, saw a big difference when I showed her a scene of King Kong off my HD-DVD disc, then showed her the same scene with my King Kong DVD disc.

I believe her exact words were, "This one looks pretty crappy" when I showed her the same scene with the Regular DVD.

And this was with my HD-A2 outputting 1080i on the HD-DVD, and upscaling on the regular DVD.

The SACD and DVD-A are both absolute jokes, because no one listens to music at home sitting on the couch staring at a turned off TV trying to listen to all the very very subtle differences.

People listen to music in the car, in the office, at the beach, outside, etc. etc. etc. But never at home with their surround sound system on, I mean gimme a break.

Even if someone were to sit in front of their hi fi system at home and listen to music, the quality of a CD is extremely good.

These number are fake but I'll just guess that the quality of a CD is 90% of DVD-A/SACD, while the quality of a 480i DVD is no where near the quality of a 1080P HD-DVD or Blu Ray.

You guys could not be more wrong, at least in my experience.

I have a small 37" Panasonic Plasma, and my girlfriend who knows nothing about any of this, saw a big difference when I showed her a scene of King Kong off my HD-DVD disc, then showed her the same scene with my King Kong DVD disc.

I believe her exact words were, "This one looks pretty crappy" when I showed her the same scene with the Regular DVD.

And this was with my HD-A2 outputting 1080i on the HD-DVD, and upscaling on the regular DVD.

Well I believe that in truth, that anyone that actually 'looks' at the picture quality can tell the difference. The one's that say that they can't tell the difference are most likely people just justifing their position because they are unable to afford to move to the HD formats at this time.

Well I believe that in truth, that anyone that actually 'looks' at the picture quality can tell the difference. The one's that say that they can't tell the difference are most likely people just justifing their position because they are unable to afford to move to the HD formats at this time.


Truer words have never been written.

Any Best Buy in America:
Shopper:"How much is this Blue Ray thing"
Associate:"The price is $499, but you get 5 free movies now"
Shopper:"Well, gees, I can't even see a difference anyway"

As she walks over to the DVD section and looks for a $10 movie to buy.

no one listens to music at home sitting on the couch staring a turned off TV trying to listen to all the very very subtle differences.

I do. :D But you're right, convenience has far surpassed quality in terms of music listening. People have a perception that music is what is in the background while they go about their life. Driving, exercising, shopping, etc. There's no desire for the experience DVD-A or SACD can offer. Combine that with restrictive DRM and connectivity, and you have a recipe for audiophile plaything, regardless of two competing formats.

It won't be two formats.

It'll be one format, as far as the retailers and public are concerned.

High Def Disc.

It won't matter if it's a BD or a HD DVD, it'll be called High Def Disc (or similar), and will play on High Def Disc players.

The only people who need to look at the little symbol on the back will be early adopters - many (most?) of whom are dual-format anyway. And they won't be at a loss. They'll still be able to play one format - just like when they first bought a player.

The studios will only have to produce one format of each film.

The retailers will only have to have one High Def Disc section, with each film in one format only.

That's the beauty of it.

Indeed, has anyone thought this could be an advantage?

A big joint press conference announcing THE FORMAT WAR IS OVER would be excellent publicity, happening at a time just as the early adopter market is becoming saturated, and ready to break into the mainstream. That's the kind of publicity that money can't buy.

Who would it not suite?

Sony & co can release on BD. They keep their extra security measures and regional coding.

Other studios can release on the cheaper HD DVD format. Unless that have a film requiring bags of space, then they can put out a BD.

Early adopters are no worse off. Your PS3 will still play BDs. Your Toshiba will still play HD DVDs.

But if you want to play the other format you need a second player - just like now (so you're no worse off).

Only the second player will be dual-format and only cost from $100 upwards.

How can anyone not like this solution? The only people it doesn't suite is anyone at either HD DVD or BD headquarters who'll only bew happy with an outright win. But here's the rub. If neither sides 'loses', and as long as both exist, we have a format war which frightens off punters. Both sides will make more money from a dual-format future than from an ongoing format war situation which alienates the public.

Steve W

+1

My thoughts exactly.
Both formats are tied to the hip so to speak. If one dies then I believe they both will die. Combo players will end the confusion and everybody wins.

... because no one listens to music at home sitting on the couch staring a turned off TV trying to listen to all the very very subtle differences.



I really hope you're being facetious here. I do this on a regular basis, as do most of the audiophiles that I know. Although I don't always stare at the turned off TV... sometimes I close my eyes. ;)

I really hope you're being facetious here. I do this on a regular basis, as do most of the audiophiles that I know. Although I don't always stare at the turned off TV... sometimes I close my eyes. ;)

But audiophiles ride on the back of everyone else.

Joe Public will put up with mp3. Whilst it's not as good as DVD-A/SACD, normal CD can still sound very good indeed.

If a 'war' between mp3/CD was fought, then mp3 would win and audiophiles would have to put up with what the mass market wanted. They'd be stuck with just the odd title on standard CD.

Just like we have with DVD-A/SACD.

Steve W

But audiophiles ride on the back of everyone else.

Joe Public will put up with mp3. Whilst it's not as good as DVD-A/SACD, normal CD can still sound very good indeed.

If a 'war' between mp3/CD was fought, then mp3 would win and audiophiles would have to put up with what the mass market wanted. They'd be stuck with just the odd title on standard CD.

Just like we have with DVD-A/SACD.

Steve W
Absolutely, and by extension, videophiles also ride on the back of everyone else.

Just as CDs are more than good enough quality for the vast majority of earthlings, DVD is also more than good enough. Until better quality formats meet all common portability, ease of use, media availability and cost expectations, then "mere" quality increases just won't matter.

Talk to people in the recording industry (if you can find them). MP3 has had a huge and very negative effect on the overall quality bar. While there are many pros who work at a high level, there are signs that the financial and professional motivations to deliver high quality in the future may drastically decrease.

I suspect the same thing is happening in the movie/video industry.

The SACD and DVD-A are both absolute jokes, because no one listens to music at home sitting on the couch staring at a turned off TV trying to listen to all the very very subtle differences.
Yep, audiophiles simply don't exist.

Never thought of it that way before, only home theater exists.