TR Forums

Ok... there has been a lot of talk recently about the BluRay and HdDVD format wars. Obviously no one can predict a clear winner. However, when will we have a winner? I dont' care which one wins, I just want to knwo when I can finally decide whether to get a HdDVD player or a BluRay player. Any ideas?

December 31rst, 2009.

How did you arive at such a date?

i honestly think that the outcome of all this will be combo players and drives that play both formats.

johntp wrote:

How did you arive at such a date?

everyone has to be hi-def by then. when people see high def tv.. they will decide they also want hi-def video discs.

I doubt if there will ever be a clear winner between these two competing formats. Digital downloads will be the winner and people will have one of the two formats or a third new format to record the shows permanently. In a few years both formats will be paced by some newer technology, probably a GPL'ed storage device.

Note: if your TV only displays 480p, that is it only has 480 vertical lines of resolution, there is no point in buying a HD-DVD or Blu-Ray as the max resolution of the TV set is the same as that of a standard DVD.

Stripe7 wrote:

I doubt if there will ever be a clear winner between these two competing formats. Digital downloads will be the winner and people will have one of the two formats or a third new format to record the shows permanently. In a few years both formats will be paced by some newer technology, probably a GPL'ed storage device.

Note: if your TV only displays 480p, that is it only has 480 vertical lines of resolution, there is no point in buying a HD-DVD or Blu-Ray as the max resolution of the TV set is the same as that of a standard DVD.

what?
digital downloads? you think joe sixpack is going to download high-def before he goes to wallyworld and picks up a high def tv for $400 and a HD-DVD player for $200 ?

nah. and end of 2009 all standard def broadcast is done.. so the prices of high-def tvs will drop a lot more by then.. I'd be suprised if very many homes still only had standard def tv by then.

danny e. wrote:

johntp wrote:

How did you arive at such a date?

everyone has to be hi-def by then. when people see high def tv.. they will decide they also want hi-def video discs.

No. They only need to have a TV that has a digital ATSC tuner in order to pick up digital broadcasts OTA. People still using analog TVs will have to get a converter box or buy a new TV. Anything broadcast in HD will be downconverted on non-HDTVs, either digital or analog.

NeXus 6 wrote:

danny e. wrote:

johntp wrote:

How did you arive at such a date?

everyone has to be hi-def by then. when people see high def tv.. they will decide they also want hi-def video discs.

No. They only need to have a TV that has a digital ATSC tuner in order to pick up digital broadcasts OTA. People still using analog TVs will have to get a converter box or buy a new TV. Anything broadcast in HD will be downconverted on non-HDTVs, either digital or analog.

so, people will go out and buy tuners by the millions for $100+ bucks a pop when they can get a new HDTV for $400? doubtful.

lets revisit this thread Dec 31, 2009.

Is $163 to add an HDDVD player to your PC not cheap enough?

Well who cares if there's a winner really.. everyones assuming there will be one supreme winner. Why not just expect that DVD, HDVD and Blu-Ray will be here to stay for years to come? Is that such a bad thing?? And if you want to pick just one, PICK the one you LIKE BEST! easy.

danny e. wrote:

johntp wrote:

How did you arive at such a date?

everyone has to be hi-def by then. when people see high def tv.. they will decide they also want hi-def video discs.

No, they don't. They have to be digital, not high def.

Stripe7 wrote:

Note: if your TV only displays 480p, that is it only has 480 vertical lines of resolution, there is no point in buying a HD-DVD or Blu-Ray as the max resolution of the TV set is the same as that of a standard DVD.

I disagree. Even with EDTV, one can see an improvement with HD discs over regular DVD.

JustAnEngineer wrote:

Is $163 to add an HDDVD player to your PC not cheap enough?

Cheap enough for what? High resolution on a small display? If I want to watch content that I have reason to desire high definition on, I'd much rather watch it on something a tad closer to theateresque. I've seen some HD content on my computer, but it's not nearly as immersive as DVD resolution content on a large screen.

danny e. wrote:

so, people will go out and buy tuners by the millions for $100+ bucks a pop when they can get a new HDTV for $400? doubtful.

lets revisit this thread Dec 31, 2009.

People don't see it that way. They see it as "OMG I need to pay 4 times as much just to continue watching what I have been watching on the same TV? Screw that."

Of course, if their TV dies then they will have no choice but to replace it, most likely with a HDTV set.

You are right though, nothing is for certain. We will see how this all pans out.

Flying Fox wrote:

danny e. wrote:

so, people will go out and buy tuners by the millions for $100+ bucks a pop when they can get a new HDTV for $400? doubtful.

lets revisit this thread Dec 31, 2009.

People don't see it that way. They see it as "OMG I need to pay 4 times as much just to continue watching what I have been watching on the same TV? Screw that."

Of course, if their TV dies then they will have no choice but to replace it, most likely with a HDTV set.

You are right though, nothing is for certain. We will see how this all pans out.

perhaps.. but I had this same arguement with an artsy-fartsy major who thought digital photography would never take off with the real photographers. That was in 2002 and I said "by 2008 all your artsy fartsy friends will be using digital".
.. i'd wager I was correct.

heheh found my email:

-----Original Message-----
From: Katie Robertson
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 3:04 PM
To: Dan Engelman

listen, Dan, you need to try to think artistically, i refuse to believe that you could do the same types of developing with a digital camera that you can with a manual camera, or whatever you call it. - it isn't all about resolution, well, it is i guess, but not in the way that you mean and what about the artistic benefits of developing your own pictures, i doubt people are going to want to give that up

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Engelman
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 3:00 PM
To: Katie Robertson

and just to humor myself...
all your "photography" friends will be using digital cameras within probably 5 or 6 years.
=) medium format camers.. and even large format cameras are a dying breed as resolution increases in professional digital cameras.

.. so I guess I didnt say 2008.. but 5 or 6 years.

the only wrong part was the whole "medium & large format" comment I made.. which is probably the only place that will stick around for a while longer. But with the introduction of "medium format" digital.. even that will die sometime

danny e. wrote:

NeXus 6 wrote:

danny e. wrote:

johntp wrote:

How did you arive at such a date?

everyone has to be hi-def by then. when people see high def tv.. they will decide they also want hi-def video discs.

No. They only need to have a TV that has a digital ATSC tuner in order to pick up digital broadcasts OTA. People still using analog TVs will have to get a converter box or buy a new TV. Anything broadcast in HD will be downconverted on non-HDTVs, either digital or analog.

so, people will go out and buy tuners by the millions for $100+ bucks a pop when they can get a new HDTV for $400? doubtful.

lets revisit this thread Dec 31, 2009.

Last I heard, the amount of HDTVs in peoples homes was around 6%, give or take. Until people can buy a 42" HDTV for $400 that number will not increase very fast.

Most people already have cable or satellite TV service, so they aren't going be affected by this analog to digtal transition. These same people aren't going to swarm to their local electronics store to pick up a new HDTV because it isn't needed.

In 2009 you will see more people with HDTVs but prices will still be too high for the masses. Those people will keep watching TV on a 32" or smaller SDTV that they bought 5 years ago or more.

If you ask me the war is over.

With only 1 studio backing HDDVD and all recent announcements of companies bailing on it. Seems like just a matter of time now.

mattsteg wrote:

JustAnEngineer wrote:

Is $163 to add an HDDVD player to your PC not cheap enough?

Cheap enough for what? High resolution on a small display? If I want to watch content that I have reason to desire high definition on, I'd much rather watch it on something a tad closer to theateresque. I've seen some HD content on my computer, but it's not nearly as immersive as DVD resolution content on a large screen.

163? are you referring to the xbox add on? If so, can you tell me for sure it will play the hd dvd content in HD over the usb cable?

Personally I have my computer hooked to the biggest HD screen in the house so I don't think it will be a difference for those of us with HTPC's. Editing HD and Playing it on my 24" gateway is rather pleasureable too.

There's an awful lot of misinformation out there regarding the switch to digital TV in 2009.

When the switch happens, people will not be forced to go Hi-Def. For over the air TV reception they will be forced to obtain an ATSC tuner box. Tuner boxes will be affordable (I'm guessing well under $100). They will be as easy to hook up as any VCR or DVD player is, and they will allow the viewer to watch "DVD Quality" TV on their old standard TV set.

Viewers who get their TV signals though a cable TV or satellite provider will NOT be affected, as these proviers are not affected by the re-allocation of the broadcast TV spectrum.

I have a 20 year old TV. I live on the outskirts of Columbus. I get crappy analog TV reception with my rooftop antenna. I bought an ATSC tuner box and hooked it up to my rooftop antenna. Now, I get picture quality on my old tube TV that is equal to that of a DVD. It looks great.

When the switchover happens, more people will hook up their TV's just like I have, and be perfectly happy. Even with the same old TV, they will see an improvement in picture quality. Colors are more vibrant, and the picture is as sharp as it can be on a 480i TV tube (the NTSC broadcast standard didn't quite max out what our old TV's could display in terms of sharpness or color).

TV's with cheaper non-HD displays will also be available with ATSC tuners in them. They are already on sale today, and are pretty reasonably priced.

I don't know the statistics, but I imagine that by 2009, most people will have cable/satellite anyway, making the whole thing a moot point.

-SF

danny e. wrote:

Flying Fox wrote:

danny e. wrote:

so, people will go out and buy tuners by the millions for $100+ bucks a pop when they can get a new HDTV for $400? doubtful.

lets revisit this thread Dec 31, 2009.

People don't see it that way. They see it as "OMG I need to pay 4 times as much just to continue watching what I have been watching on the same TV? Screw that."

Of course, if their TV dies then they will have no choice but to replace it, most likely with a HDTV set.

You are right though, nothing is for certain. We will see how this all pans out.

perhaps.. but I had this same arguement with an artsy-fartsy major who thought digital photography would never take off with the real photographers. That was in 2002 and I said "by 2008 all your artsy fartsy friends will be using digital".
.. i'd wager I was correct.

That's a completely different argument. Digital photography is cheaper for people who actually utilize their equipment, and has fallen in price and increased in quality a ton. HDTV prices can only go so low, and quality is, to a large extent, defined by the specification. Not saying that tuner boxes will be popular (or won't, for that matter) but the situations are completely different.

mattsteg wrote:

danny e. wrote:

Flying Fox wrote:

danny e. wrote:

so, people will go out and buy tuners by the millions for $100+ bucks a pop when they can get a new HDTV for $400? doubtful.

lets revisit this thread Dec 31, 2009.

People don't see it that way. They see it as "OMG I need to pay 4 times as much just to continue watching what I have been watching on the same TV? Screw that."

Of course, if their TV dies then they will have no choice but to replace it, most likely with a HDTV set.

You are right though, nothing is for certain. We will see how this all pans out.

perhaps.. but I had this same arguement with an artsy-fartsy major who thought digital photography would never take off with the real photographers. That was in 2002 and I said "by 2008 all your artsy fartsy friends will be using digital".
.. i'd wager I was correct.

That's a completely different argument. Digital photography is cheaper for people who actually utilize their equipment, and has fallen in price and increased in quality a ton. HDTV prices can only go so low, and quality is, to a large extent, defined by the specification. Not saying that tuner boxes will be popular (or won't, for that matter) but the situations are completely different.

whatever. same principle. tv is the drug of the masses. as prices continue to drop more people will be picking them up. even "poor" people can somehow afford big tvs.
.. lets what the percentages are Dec 31, 2009.

danny e. wrote:

whatever. same principle.

No, they're very different principles. The "film forever" crew was operating in a world where 1) film produced better quality 2) the SLRs that even approached film quality were large, very expensive professional SLRs, and 3) film provided a familiar process with perceived strengths that "film people" didn't want to leave behind.

At no time has analog TV produced superior output to HDTV. The comparison is different on the most fundamental level.

mattsteg wrote:

danny e. wrote:

whatever. same principle.

No, they're very different principles. The "film forever" crew was operating in a world where 1) film produced better quality 2) the SLRs that even approached film quality were large, very expensive professional SLRs, and 3) film provided a familiar process with perceived strengths that "film people" didn't want to leave behind.

At no time has analog TV produced superior output to HDTV. The comparison is different on the most fundamental level.

all of those points make my arguement now more valid.
I'm not saying the "digital" vs "film" is similary to "analog" vs "digital". I'm making a simple arguement about people and tech. Joe Sixpack loves tech and drives the market... prices come down and tech improves and then even "artsy fartsy" guy adopts.
the only difference with the current discussion is that "artsy fartsy" in this case are people like me who already have HDTV.. and its just joe Sixpack that needs prices to come down a bit.

I don't want to drag this thread off topic any more than it already is, but I just want to mention that the actual date for the digital TV changeover is February 17, 2009 (ten and a half months earlier than the previously mentioned December 31, 2009).

As I said before, there's too much mis-information out there about the switch.

-SF

SlyFerret wrote:

There's an awful lot of misinformation out there regarding the switch to digital TV in 2009.

When the switch happens, people will not be forced to go Hi-Def. For over the air TV reception they will be forced to obtain an ATSC tuner box. Tuner boxes will be affordable (I'm guessing well under $100). They will be as easy to hook up as any VCR or DVD player is, and they will allow the viewer to watch "DVD Quality" TV on their old standard TV set.

Viewers who get their TV signals though a cable TV or satellite provider will NOT be affected, as these proviers are not affected by the re-allocation of the broadcast TV spectrum.

I have a 20 year old TV. I live on the outskirts of Columbus. I get crappy analog TV reception with my rooftop antenna. I bought an ATSC tuner box and hooked it up to my rooftop antenna. Now, I get picture quality on my old tube TV that is equal to that of a DVD. It looks great.

When the switchover happens, more people will hook up their TV's just like I have, and be perfectly happy. Even with the same old TV, they will see an improvement in picture quality. Colors are more vibrant, and the picture is as sharp as it can be on a 480i TV tube (the NTSC broadcast standard didn't quite max out what our old TV's could display in terms of sharpness or color).

TV's with cheaper non-HD displays will also be available with ATSC tuners in them. They are already on sale today, and are pretty reasonably priced.

I don't know the statistics, but I imagine that by 2009, most people will have cable/satellite anyway, making the whole thing a moot point.

-SF

this is the only logical arguement against a huge HDTV sales progression.
.. however only if someone markets tuners to consumers more than marketers market HDTVs to consumers.

I'm sure Walmart would rather sell a TV for $400 than a tuner for <$100.
.. well, perhaps not if the tuner actually makes them more money.. but I would guess that wouldtn be the case.

SlyFerret wrote:

I don't want to drag this thread off topic any more than it already is, but I just want to mention that the actual date for the digital TV changeover is February 17, 2009 (ten and a half months earlier than the previously mentioned December 31, 2009).

As I said before, there's too much mis-information out there about the switch.

-SF

I was simply using that date to say the HD-DVD vs BluRay will be decided by then. .. my prediction.

danny e. wrote:

I'm not saying the "digital" vs "film" is similary to "analog" vs "digital".

danny e. wrote:

I had this same arguement with an artsy-fartsy major who thought digital photography would never take off with the real photographers.

danny e. wrote:

whatever. same principle.

Seriously, why bother claiming you didn't say things you said you did when anyone who wants to can scroll up half a page to read them?

mattsteg wrote:

danny e. wrote:

I'm not saying the "digital" vs "film" is similary to "analog" vs "digital".

danny e. wrote:

I had this same arguement with an artsy-fartsy major who thought digital photography would never take off with the real photographers.

danny e. wrote:

whatever. same principle.

Seriously, why bother claiming you didn't say things you said you did when anyone who wants to can scroll up half a page to read them?

the argument is about general principle rather than the details.

EDITED. by dengelman.

danny e. wrote:

mattsteg wrote:

danny e. wrote:

I'm not saying the "digital" vs "film" is similary to "analog" vs "digital".

danny e. wrote:

I had this same arguement with an artsy-fartsy major who thought digital photography would never take off with the real photographers.

danny e. wrote:

whatever. same principle.

Seriously, why bother claiming you didn't say things you said you did when anyone who wants to can scroll up half a page to read them?

you are too thick-headed to get a arguement based on the general principle rather than the details.

If you truly believe that, you were too stupid to have a clue what your "artsy fartsy" friend was saying back in 2001 and completely lucked into being "right" in the end. I suppose that's not unreasonable to suspect as being the case...