How much of an impact is picture quality on the format war? - Page 5  

Well that was a terribly dense something or another and very good in it's logic. But if you actually want people to read what you write, a bit of expansion in your style of prose is in order. That being said, keep it up. I'm looking for the next installment with improvements in style... ;)

b2b

It shows no such thing. It just shows that PQ alone cannot outweigh EVERY other possible consideration (else people would have 35 mm projectors in their homes). You're attempting to change the question from "which of these new disc formats has given the higher priority to picture quality" (which is the REAL question) to "would people ignore EVERY other possible factor to get topnotch picture quality?". Saying no to the latter does NOTHING to change the answer to the former.

I don't think I need any more 'expansion', do you? :)

Here's one for the ADD set (imagine flash cut inserts and spinning camera)...

Bam! Wait 'til all the tech is 'out there'! Flash! Other factors--factor! Kapow! Qualilty HD has been available elsewhere... Whamo! So where've you been! Krack!

How's that?

Zam!

I didn't buy in to D VHS because
1) it was initally too expensive at $1K
2) every single demo I saw of it produced dropouts and nasty picture break up. Every single time. Maybe I was just unlucky, but that leaves a major negative impression nonetheless.
3) by the time the prices fell to what I had considered reasonable, the title selection hadn't improved much. I had a list of a dozen or so titles I wanted to see on the format before I would risk jumping in. of those, the only one that EVER showed up was Alien and it was sadly the Directors re-cut, which I dislike.

I don't have sat HD because I just can't justify the cost being on the road as much as I am. DVD with purchases and Netflix fits my needs perfectly. Hell I don't watch any TV content on my PJ in my HT. Its solely for viewing dvds and I'm happy to keep it that way.

The HD A1 is the first time I've had access to HD in my HT. I enjoy it for the $500 buy-in, but if it were priced at $1K, even with what I regard as superb quality most of the time, I would still pass. PQ is important, but so is outright cost and the perception of value.

I'm a little late to this discussion but this is an interesting point to discuss. The fact is that HD-DVD (VC-1) today outclasses US HDTV (mpeg2, low bitrates). The difference is huge at least with a fairly large screen.

However. The difference between HD-DVD (VC-1) and new European HDTV (H.264) is neglible at best. This seems to be the HDTV of choice for the future in Europe. The quality really is so close to HD-DVD that it is very hard to tell the difference.

This gives us a situation where broadcast HDTV and HD discs will be the same or almost the same quality unlike the situation today where SD DVD is much better than any SDTV.

Is this a threat to HD-DVD and Blueray? Possibly. The one feature that will be able to persuade the masses is the ability to record. As much as I want HD discs to replace SD DVDs I really think we need recordable HD-DVD at affordable prices. That will be the dealbreaker for most. In Europe TiVos are virtually unknown (except maybe the UK). Instead we use DVD-recorders with or without built in harddisks. Untill we get something similar in HD quality I think HD will be in a tough situation.

This is the second time I have heard this statement. Is there some independent evaluation that I can read about on this? From what I know, the real-time AVC encoders have pretty poor quality. Forcing them to run in constant bit rate, at rates lower than HD DVD, without manual tuning that HD DVDs go through, is bound to produce pictures that are lower in quality. Note that I don't dispute that they may look better than broadcast HD in US as MPEG-2 is really bad in this respect. But it is hard to accept any claim of "negligible at best" for the difference in the two formats.

Well, we have people who think HD DVD and DVD are not different :). Being hard to tell the difference is not proof that the formats are the same.

[quote[The one feature that will be able to persuade the masses is the ability to record. [/quote]
And other features such as interactivity. Better audio, and random access without a PVR.

Two words, Paulidan, and all those 'road warriors' out there:

Sling...box. On your laptop, on your PDA/phone...take your cable/Tivo/sat content w/ you. It's awesome. I access my jukeboxed DVD collection, too. Need good bandwidth, but it works.

Otherwise, I see where you're coming from. I also read your story and see a pattern others match...price, viewing/content preferences, bad experiences/predilections. Nowhere in that list of priorities/buying factors do I see PQ/HD as the shining prime directive, though. Scaled DVDs can look good (I'm super-pleased w/ what my VP30 does for mine)...but it 'ain't HD'.

I bought into D-VHS late on account of cost, btw, and concur it's imperfect. I'm glad I did and find it was a wise purchase. Besides D-Theater, I have an archive of my own recorded HD content (for example: World Series 2005 is on my shelf in 1080i, and some day I'll transfer it via firewire/etc to disc, when a recordable option enters my home) and a top-end VHS player to boot (I plan on having LP, cassette, CD and VHS playback in my system for a while--you NEVER know). The titles look great and there's really no need to re-purchase them in Gen1 HD disc releases until they're loaded w/ all that the format(s) promise imho.

As for the other options, you could have a solid library of fine-looking HD movies/et al from a reputable provider (one that offers such an array of content and minimizes HD-Lite) on a DVR or a HTPC. Many here do...again, if they have set that as a priority.

My point is...I'm as eager as the next guy for HD on disc, but I'm also aware its not the end all, beat all--yet. But, again, to beat the drums of 'usability' and 'breadth of content', 'PQ' is but part of the equation.

Prose... not MTV... :D

b2b

Talking about slinbox, did you know that its video compression is VC-1? It uses a simplified encoder so it doesn't have the performance of the PC but it is VC-1 compatible nevertheless...

While on this forum, PQ is probably what will make or break a format, to the rest of the world it's all about marketing.

Inferior products can win out over the higher quality ones. Hell, Microsoft is the poster boy for that (; (Windows NT 3.1 vs OS/2) (WinCE vs PalmOS).

Though, their VC-1 strategy for HD DVD has paid off well, and they're running with a superior product for a change, at least for the time being.

I have no idea what BBC uses to encode their broadcasts or if they even do so themselves. Hopefully someone can find out for us.

As for bitrates I think BBC actually is broadcasting at similar bitrates that HD-DVD is using. Showing my limited knowledge I have to ask why would TV broadcasts (for non live events, such as movies) have to use real-time encoders?

You are of course right that not being able to tell the difference isn't the same as being the same. All I can say is that for me we have reached the level where I really can't tell the difference anymore. I watch on a Pioneer 6th gen 50". Maybe if I had a bigger screen I could. I can see very distinct steps between SDTV -> SDDVD -> mpeg2 HDTV -> HD-DVD. I really can't between HD-DVD and H.264 HDTV. If can't then I don't think that most can either. Either because they don't have the gear or don't care. In both cases pq has seized to be much of an advantage.

Apparently you encoders have done such a great job that the limits you can reach with anything anyone is likely to use for watching is fast approaching.

While interactivity and better audio is great I just doubt that many millions will buy because of it. Recordable HDTV to HDdisc would.

I'm on your side. I really want HD-DVD to succed. I think it will because people will not accept watching DVDs with less quality than their broadcasts will be in a few years. Recording those broadcasts will be the clincher.

From the original post: "Will people choose HD DVD over Blu-ray because of this? Is the Picture quality that much more important than the selection of players or the Movie Selection?"

For me, it's almost all about the Movie Selection. I really don't want to have TWO players, though that would be acceptable if they get thin and inexpensive. A combo player would be preferable.

As a Netflix user, I have rented many of the movies on the currently (or soon to be) available lists of both formats. How many of those would I want to rent again in the near future so that I could watch them in high definition? Very few.

So far, there have been no titles released that I would want to buy, or that would trigger the purchase of a player (and a new projector and a new AV receiver).

Perhaps when enough day-and-date new movie titles are being released, I'll have to make a decision... And I'll be unhappy when a movie that I'd like to see is released only on the "other" format.

Hey, some of us are still trying ;)

I haven't read the entire thread yet so maybe this got a lot of coverage. But, the last part about BD being extensible to the computer and other media uses is EXACTLY how I look at the war. HD-DVD did enough right on kick-off to survive. Sony has so many alternatives for distribution of their product line that it will live for years even if it never musters impressive numbers. HD-DVD will expand into the "media" market segment as well.

Basically, for good or ill, we are stuck with two formats. This won't change for quite a few years. I doubt either party will win or lose. I believe they will win certain majorities in certain market segments and each will claim victory.

Because media/computers/entertainment are merging so rapidly I don't even necessarily think it's bad. If you don't think all of your movies will be available on whatever format you choose (if you are going to pick just one), how long until someone is able to rip one format and transfer to the other? I give it about 10 minutes. People are probably already doing it.

I think it is about picture quality! That is the WHOLE reason we buy HDTV's. Am I wrong? I have never known anyone to buy an HDTV because it looks like a good ornament for their living room. Why would you pay TWICE as much for an inferior picture. Do you folks really think that the difference is negligable? Man, you guys need to go see your local optometrist. I mean come on. I agree with the movie selection part, but again, if HD DVD becomes well supported the studios will jump on board.

And to answer the question of the thread,

if you are into HT, PQ and AQ are the only things that matter. Everything else is secondary.

What's consumer electronic brand loyaty these days? How many of us, or J6P for that matter, think in a 5-10 year timeframe when we buying a consumer product. Once the price for players come down to $299 or less, brand loyalty flys away....

I suspect MANY people would have held off if the HD-XA1 had been the only player and at $900.

The next question would be whether the perception of value is absolute or relative. If the BD players were coming out at $500, what would you have done?

Gary

I answered this question a few posts earlier. Both formats are going to be here for 5 to 10 years. Both formats will be in CD/DVD writers for PCs. Both will get enough market share to live on.

There will be very little brand loyalty. My opinion is that the vast majority will get one on purpose and the other incidentally. I like to use my parents and my neighbors as a market test. So here you go. Most of my neighbors have cable TV. Most of them have the ability to display at least 720p. Not a single person pays for HD. A few of us have DirecTV. None get HD. We have one person with Dish. No HD. You ask any of them and they will tell you they looked but didn't see a much of a difference and it wasn't worth the cost.

EDIT: Oh yeah, all the OTA networks are available HD, everyone watches SD if they bother to tune OTA. The few attempts that have been made to get HD have been met with ACK YOU MUST BE KIDDING (again, macro blocking, tearing, dropped signal, bad audio etc....)

I was in BB with a friend and the Samsung BR demo disk was playing on a Samsung plasma. I asked him what he thought. He said "shrug", I don't see that it's that much better than DVD and the picture breaks up all the time (it macroblocked and was on VIVID, it looked terrible). He also didn't know there was BR and HD-DVD or that there is a difference.

My parents will switch when they get one or the other as a present. They would hook it into the set with Coax for all they care. DVD looks fine to them. Of course they don't know either even exists yet, and wouldn't care if they did.

My point of all this is that the general public will get these devices accidently as part of regular upgrades, replacements or presents. There won't be a very knowledgable process involved with the purchase. They will pick price point and price point only.

In general making these available for the game consoles was a good idea. However, it doesn't do much for the HT crowd. It just insures that both formats will exist a long time.

The BBC is using H.264 at 1440x1080 in a 24.128 Mbps DVB-T multiplex (64-QAM, 2/3 FEC and 1/32 guard interval in an 8 MHz channel). I'm sure it looks fabulous.

Ron

As of right now, PQ motivated me to buy an HD-DVD player. I put my money where my mouth is, have you?

Yes, I have put my money where my mouth is. There is currently no compelling reason to buy either format. When there are a significant number of movies that don't suck, a price point that isn't rediculous and technical issues are ironed out then I will buy into BOTH formats as warrented. Until then my money stays in my pocket.

Cool, did you register for this forum on accident? If new technology doesn't excite you there are lots of forums that aren't specifically about... new technology... :rolleyes:

There's lots of old technology that has a large amount of support, has all the bugs ironed out and is cheaper. It isn't exciting or worth talking about, but it fits your interest level.

until there were Bd titles I was actually interested in, my money would have stayed in my pocket regardless. 10/17 sees the very first exclusive Bd title I actually would have been excited to get. Had the players been something special, and the software getting rave reviews I would have laid down some money then on a Bd player, and probably foregone an HD DVD one- even though there are plenty of Universal titles I would love to have.
So, a $500 player would have swayed me to picking up Bd first, but that was contingent on perceptions of a quality product. I was floored how weak the Bd discs that I've seen looked. I was just skipping around TFE last night again, and it was a joke. Even at $500 I would pass on that kind of quality- and not look back.
And I can't for the life of me see why other people wouldn't as well.

I agree.

I didn't know the particulars of its implementation, but knew it was based on WM9, as many streaming products are. Just curious, where does one draw the line between WM9 and VC-1 (I know/gather VC-1 is a codec implemented within WM9).

I'm also curious, and maybe you can answer this (or maybe its a question for the Sling fellows)...what kind of bandwidth is necessary for WM9/VC-1 streaming full-screen SD at near-DVD quality (i.e. what kind of network connection/throughput would you have to have). The Slingbox solution is fantastic for scaling based on your real-world bandwidth conditions, but I've yet to see it do anything near that 'lossless' quality level. Also, what would be needed for HD? And how does this compare w/ H.264/AVC? Sorry if this seems off from the disc-based dialogue, but I'm curious what the spec calls for/allows in this regards...

Feel free to post any reply you might have over on the 'VC-1 and AVC/H.264 discussion' thread if you feel it more appropriate...

Those that suggest that PQ/AQ are the 'only things that matter' should look up a thing called "content" in the dictionary. Particulary in regards to 'Home THEATER,' one could claim that the latter word indicates a cathedral-like reverence to drama/movies and the like.

I don't sit around all day just staring into my fish tank, no matter how pretty the little swimmers are, just to admire the display. I may be guilty of buying into some less quality films because of eye-candy factor, but overall...I buy films that are worth watching, not just as "demo material".

I don't know anyone who says they're the "only" things that matter (else everyone would have 35 mm setups in their houses). But they shouldn't take a back seat to other considerations (as they obviously have with most early BD releases).

Yes, but when PQ doesn't matter one can apply that cathedral-like reverence to DVD's rented at Blockbuster, with huge selection but lower resolution.

- Tom

So, you're suggesting it's not possible for me to be deeply interested in this technology unless I buy a player the day one shows up on the market? I disagree completely.

For example I am very interested in the Pioneer player with network support (but evidently no HD audio support) or the Sony (but without some of the advanced media interfaces). Once they are out and some detailed information is available I will make an informed decision to purchase a player OR not purchase a player. If Christmas roles around and we are still getting the bottom of the barrel B movies as our media offerings, I again will make the choice to ignore it.

Ok, I'd rather watch a great old Black&White classic on a 14" TV with Rabbit Ears pulling in a garbled signal than watch the BR version of UltraViolet on the best HT in existance. You win :D

So yes, content matters. But, comparing apples to apples......if say Amadeus is available on DVD and HD-DVD/BR the questioin is what will drive the sale of HD-DVD/BR over the DVD version. Will it be PQ/AQ of the movie or will it be massive amounts of bonus material and an interactive web site interface that you can access by clicking a succession of buttons on the remote for 20 minutes, only to get :

error 404