You are trying to flog a dead horse. Are you seriously trying to tell me that people are going to spend £500 to get an HDTV and then baulk at paying £100 for a BD player, and settle for watching SD movies that they could gave watched on a much cheaper SDTV? Try pulling the other leg please!
Now the war is over wishfull thinkers please explain how blu will ever replace DVD.
- Thread starter quest55720
- Start date
You are trying to flog a dead horse. Are you seriously trying to tell me that people are going to spend £500 to get an HDTV and then baulk at paying £100 for a BD player, and settle for watching SD movies that they could gave watched on a much cheaper SDTV? Try pulling the other leg please!
I'd be interested in polling data for buyers of the oodles of cheap LCD sets regarding how they think of their new TV (i.e. the reason for purchasing). I'd bet good money that a significant portion of these customers have bought a "flat TV" not a "high definition" one.
You seem to think people are buying HDTVs so that they can watch SD content. 90% of TV sets sold currently are HDTV sets. Why would these people who you say can't afford a £150 BD player, buy a £500 HDTV if you are not going to watch HD content? BD players can also play DVDs, so their existing DVDs aren't going to be redundant.
It's is twisted logic anyway you look at it.
quest55720
Regular
They want a thin TV you really think if every HD-tv was crt people would buy HD-tvs? Also how long before every tv in the house going to be HD? DVD could be taken advantage of on any tv a person might own. Also any new media purchase will have to be redunant if they want to watch it any where but the living room/ht.
I think once catalog sales are weak for a while studios will be much less apt to push blu unless they keep margins really high. There is no point in pushing a new format if it mostly seeing the same sales as DVD ie new releases little catalog for the same type margins when expenses are higher. It is a real sticky situation for the studios. Every other format change it got people to upgrade the old collection not so this time around. It will be interesting to see how the studios do this.
I never said they can't afford it. I in fact said something quite different. I said most of them won't spend it on what you seem to think they will.
Every individual has their own criteria for their spending, many enthusiasts have probably already bought into HD media (HDTV and media players), but there are many people who didn't even move to DVD until the price was rock bottom and there were thousands of titles available in the collective library of DVD media. Many people don't see the value of spending $20 on a new release DVD, these same people probably aren't going to see the value of spending $30 on a new release BD.
I personally buy 2-3 movies every week and I have a huge collection, but I consider the quality of DVD more than adequate to my needs and I find more utility in buying more DVDs than better quality media. Many of my movie purchases are also at the $5 price point as I'm in no hurry to get most movies. At price parity I would no doubt buy HD media although it would have issues with portability that I now enjoy. I'm not sure what the price point is where I'd consider moving to HD, but I don't value it significantly higher than DVD quality.
As usual you have offered zero....ZERO evidence for this and thus your argument is essentially worthless.
A long, long time. Of course no one in their right mind makes the assumption that the consumer won't commit to BR until every TV in their house is HD. Oh wait you did.
Yes, as soon as CDs came out, I immediately replaced every cassette and LP I had. Oh wait, I didn't and neither did most people and yet CDs took over the world...eventually.
quest55720
Regular
But there was incentive to replace cassette/vhs tapes for dvd/cd. No rewind being able to skip around tracks durablility. I lost more tapes to being worn out or eaten than I can count. What incentive is there this time pq/sq? When 80% of people run sound through the tv speakers that leaves pq. If PQ was important we would be seeing alot more OTA antenas by the public. Hell what is a 40 dollar or less antena compared to the cost of a 1000 dollar tv. There is a hell of a lot more difference in PQ between standard cable and OTA than DVD and blu.
If the early adopters don't see the value of catalog titles what do you think the averager person will see that value?
I completely agree that the disc medium offers very tangible benefits in addition to better quality.
However I already responded to your antenna theory but will do so again.
1> You are assuming that consumers even are aware of HD OTA - where is your proof for this? Why do you think the average consumer even comprehends that you can do so since the idea of using antennas for TV shows is so 70s?
2> You are assuming that setting up an antenna is easy and will automatically get you OTA HD broadcasts. This is patently and absurdly false since your location will affect what you can receive. Hell, for proof of this there are a few websites that you can plug your location into to see what you can or can not receive. If getting OTA HD channels was guaranteed, why do these websites exist?
3> You are equating Cable TV channels (100s of them) with just a few OTA HD channels.
Making the assumption that just because consumers may not use an antenna means they don't care about PQ is incredibly silly and well past sheer insanity.
Do you think *I* care about PQ? Well I do. Why don't I bother with an antenna? Because it's a pain in the ass and will only get me 3 or less stations. Whee ha.
I and everyone else moved over IN TIME. Read those last two words again because you constantly seem to have difficulty understanding that.
quest55720
Regular
You really think early adopters were hesitant about replacing thier cassettes/vhs with DVD/CD? Hell no they were out there buying catalog titles as fast as they could afford or released to get rid of the crappy vhs/cassette versions. Hell even regular people were gun ho about replacing their vhs/cassette tapes when they moved over. I was late to the game of DVD 2001 but soon as I switched it I was out buying catalog titles to replace the crappy vhs versions of my favorite movies. That is why DVD was a boon to the studios thanks to people rebuying movies. Go check out some of the early adopter boards. They are not buying catalog titles unless extremely discounted. The numbers have been posted in this thread. About the only acceptions are some of the super collector sets like blade runner. If those people are not biting what do you think the average person will do? The only hd-dvds I have bought have been recent releases no double dips. While hd-dvd has great pq/sq it is not 20 dollars better than the DVD I already own. Now sub 10 dollars and we can talk but that just puts the studios were they are at already with devalued IPs.
If you choose to watch network tv in SD over HD then I question your commitment to PQ. Even if I could only get half the HD stations I do now OTA I would still do it. Free programming with great PQ is a win in my book. That 24.99 radio shack yagi clone was some of the best value I ever got. I get 30-40 hours of free HD ever week well that was till the damn writers strike.
Last edited by a moderator:
MulciberXP
Regular
...
Last edited by a moderator:
Can you make up your mind? Just the post earlier you were speaking about the AVERAGE CONSUMER and now you want to talk about the EARLY ADOPTER?
Oh really? And you know this how?
I wasn't late to DVD and yet I didn't quickly switch over from VHS. I guess I cancel you out.
They will slowly move over in time during sales, price decreases, etc. How many times do we need to bring this up to you? You keep on framing the argument as if people need to switch over in a heartbeat.
And this is an example of your problem right here. You see things (no pun intended) as black and white. You simply lack the ability to comprehend that in life, there are trade offs. Secondly you seem to be unaware that CABLE BROADCASTS CAN BE IN HD.
Do I value PQ? Yes. Do I need to have the best PQ no matter what? No, I am more than willing to give a little in PQ for other benefits.
Ease of use, DVR, and 100s of channels are a win in my book.
Exactly. Most HDTV's are sold at £500-£1000. Who the hell is gonna quibble about £150 for a HD player if you think the difference is significant? Am In the only one that thinks upscaled DVD doesnt look that great on a 1080p screen? I have a £1100 Samsung LE40F86, and DVD pictures are somewhat blocky and lacking sharpness. Not going to bother everyone, but once HD players hit £200, then I only see things moving one way.
I think it is a misconception to believe that people are buying HDTVs (primarily) in order to watch HD content.
IMO, the most important reasons why J6P buys a HDTV are:
- The old tv set is out of order
- Bigger screen size
- Want to be "future-proof" and/or lack of SD models (it's getting pretty hard to get any reasonable sized sd tv set)
For ordinary people buying a reasonable large TV set is quite an investment, they expect to hold on to it for at least 7-10 years. So they are willing to spend a bit more on it. Not so with dvd players. These are replaced quicker and so people do not like to spend as much.
Regarding upscaled DVD and upscaled 1080p: When I look into the papers most advertised HDTVs are still 1376x768 here in germany, so even if people have HDTV only a minority has 1080p. I expect it's similar in other countries. Then the percieved difference in PQ depends pretty much on screen size and viewing distance (and the eyes of the viewer, a fact that is often forgotten). At screen sizes < 40" and normal living room viewing distance (>= 3m) the difference is observable but not huge. The PQ difference between VHS and DVD was much larger here. So, for most people (think J6P) DVD quality is still good enough and they won't start buying HD (regulary) until the price of HD media falls to DVD levels (or at least comes close to it) or average screen sizes climb to or above 40" (or living rooms get smaller).
People really do love turning it up to eleven in these threads, don't they?!
They are. I know people who've done this. They've bought an HDTV because it was a nice slim LCD, and it had digital Freeview, and their old telly had just broken.
This statistic (if true) can be taken any way you like. What it says to me is that ordinary folks who don't care about HD but whose TVs have just gone wrong are wandering into stores and buying an oooooo nice shiny flat new telly. Using the statistic to conclude that 90% of people care about HD is stretching things too far, and completely ignores the natural turn-over of new TVs regardless of the whizzo new features. (Kind of like how people buy new cars every three years even if the old one is still working).
Their DVD players work with their new HDTVs and their old DVDs too. It doesn't cost them £150. Many of them will assume that they're getting HD anyway because they've just bought an HDTV.
They are. I know people who've done this. They've bought an HDTV because it was a nice slim LCD, and it had digital Freeview, and their old telly had just broken.
This statistic (if true) can be taken any way you like. What it says to me is that ordinary folks who don't care about HD but whose TVs have just gone wrong are wandering into stores and buying an oooooo nice shiny flat new telly. Using the statistic to conclude that 90% of people care about HD is stretching things too far, and completely ignores the natural turn-over of new TVs regardless of the whizzo new features. (Kind of like how people buy new cars every three years even if the old one is still working).
Their DVD players work with their new HDTVs and their old DVDs too. It doesn't cost them £150. Many of them will assume that they're getting HD anyway because they've just bought an HDTV.
I don't see any issues here, it's just a question of time.They will soon notice that they aren't.
I couldn't believe how crap SD content looked (and still looks) on my HDTV, now if everyone buys a nice plasma then they won't notice, but the vast majority don't buy plasma, they buy LCDs so sooner or later they are going to see something ain't right.
Everytime something changes you could bring up this same argument, VHS>DVD, Tape>CD, 4:3>16:9, SD>HD, the better option always proves it's worth to even the most clueless of potential buyers within a few years, they all have friends who know more that will be saying "you got a blu-ray player yet mate"
I'm quite techie and I'm now on my 2nd LCD HDTV (a 40" 720p Samsung). However, I don't have a Blu-ray or HD-DVD player, haven't even considered buying one and don't intend to get one in the near future either. 99% of the time the TV is used to view transmissions from my SD cable box. I'll probably move across to a HD cable box in the next year but even that won't have many HD feeds (I'm too tight to pay the premium!) so, for the foreseeable future I'll be mainly viewing SD transmissions.
I've recently set up a HTPC and have viewed one or two HD feeds through that and there is a noticeable difference to SD. However, for a 40" TV the optimum viewing distance for 720p is apparently around 8 feet. If I sit this distance from my TV and watch an SD broadcast, the image quality is absolutely atrocious, not to mention the fact that I'd have to move the coffee table out of the way then shift my chair into the middle of the room! Therefore, I sit about twice that distance from the TV - SD broadcasts look fine, HD feeds look a bit better and I'm quite happy.
I know that all of my friends who have HDTVs are in a similar position (though a couple have PS3s and have purchased maybe a couple of Blu-ray movies) and, until HD broadcasts become commonplace on terrestrial TV (i.e. free transmissions), I can't really see HD really becoming as important as some in this thread seem to think it already is.
I've recently set up a HTPC and have viewed one or two HD feeds through that and there is a noticeable difference to SD. However, for a 40" TV the optimum viewing distance for 720p is apparently around 8 feet. If I sit this distance from my TV and watch an SD broadcast, the image quality is absolutely atrocious, not to mention the fact that I'd have to move the coffee table out of the way then shift my chair into the middle of the room! Therefore, I sit about twice that distance from the TV - SD broadcasts look fine, HD feeds look a bit better and I'm quite happy.
I know that all of my friends who have HDTVs are in a similar position (though a couple have PS3s and have purchased maybe a couple of Blu-ray movies) and, until HD broadcasts become commonplace on terrestrial TV (i.e. free transmissions), I can't really see HD really becoming as important as some in this thread seem to think it already is.
Similar threads
- Locked
