Huh now imagine if HD DVD would have one. Think it would be a different story.
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/13811.cfm
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/13811.cfm
Similar like few years ago, HDTV vs tube TV. Once gov announces stop the analog signal on 2/17/09, then most of the consumer will want one and with the HDTV price drop then HDTV will success. What if regular TV still in production and no end to deliver analog, HDTV won't be as successful as today, right?
I couldn't agree more. The loss of analog TV only affects the small percentage of households that still receive their standard definition signals via an OTA antenna. The decoder box required to receive the new digital broadcasts works fine with analog TVs, as does your existing satellite receivers and cable boxes.SIGH....this is the most misunderstood issue I've ever seen in my life. *NO ONE* seems to understand what it means, let alone that an HDTV is not needed nor will it affect 90% of the people out there. Oh well.
:clap: Exactly. To top it off, my son and daughter don't have a cable box attached to their tv's, and guess what, on Feb 09 they still won't. It's completely unnecessary as the cable system is not affected by this change in the least. It's ONLY for OTA broadcasts. Yet, retailers are duping consumers into thinking they need high priced HDTV's or risk having their existing tv's go dark. What an absolute disgrace.
The sad fact is that most consumers think DVDs are simply good enough and don't think the increase in picture quality with Blu-Ray justifies the added cost. Just look at how many low-res movies and TV shows are downloaded from the internet and you'll get an idea of the mainstream mentality when it comes to quality media. If it's free, or at least cheap, and convenient, the masses will flock to it. I've tried downloading TV shows using bittorrent as a last resort if my DVR missed an episode of a favorite show but I cringe when I have to watch it because the picture quality is crap, pure and simple. Just try and badmouth unBox movies at the Tivo Community Forum and see how badly you get flamed for speaking such blasphemy.
It will not surprise me at all if it is hard to get mass adoption of Blu-ray. The only way it will happen in my opinion is price equivalence and/or an aggressive policy by studios to discontinue DVD. I don't see it happening any time soon.Back to the topic, I truly think that until DVD slow down or stop production and make it BD as the standard movie format in the media of the future until then I don't think BD or any other hi-def format will able to replace DVD. The good side is I think it will be difficult to replace BD after HDDVD die not to mention it will cost tons to develop and bring another new format to market.
Of course your right,the problem lies with the retailers as much as the gov.SIGH....this is the most misunderstood issue I've ever seen in my life. *NO ONE* seems to understand what it means, let alone that an HDTV is not needed nor will it affect 90% of the people out there. Oh well.
Don't know if you all aware that a few Name Big Box retailers have had fines imposed for not labeling their analog tuner flat screens as not being atscdtv compliant. As for BD sales I figure a BR-HD DVD reader because of the tighter tolerances make them better SD readers for our backup applications.
Of course your right,the problem lies with the retailers as much as the gov.
shops like currys,etc fail to tell the consumer the truth about our lcd and plasma tvs,that they are indeed as you say,"not needed" for digital switch over.your average 32" tv is as good (if not better in some cases )as many so called digital tvs out at the moment.
All you need is a freeview box or pvr,and vola digital tv.(unless your trying to convence her indoors to change the tv,if so, lie through your teeth!:rock:
The way I see the "upscaled DVD is good enough" problem is this. The people who say it:
1) Really don't care. Good for them, no one is demanding they do.
2) Have never seen a movie like Corpse Bride or Ratatouille on a 1080p display. Only seen live-action movies of which only a VERY few like Zodiac seem to actually reach the highest possible resolution (i.e. limited by the 1080p format). Not even the ubiquitous demo Spiderman 3 looks as sharp as those.
3) Had much higher expectations due to unreasonable marketing hype ("Up to 6x Resolution!" of DVD, which is pure unadulterated cr@p. It's only up to a bit more than 2x -- or less than 2x, if it's a PAL DVD). So people saw it, and then thought, that's it?
I think 2 is the most common and then probably 3, seeing that people I know seem to think that upconverted DVD looks so much better than regular DVD on a 480p screen, (so that excludes 1 for those people). It might be edge enhancement, but it will never be higher resolution. It's just a trick, it may please many, but not some of us that have seen "the light" of HD. Also, many people don't even realize their "HDTVs" are not 1080p (of course not talking about anyone here), or they have just seen a "1080p" demo at a store.
About reason #2, the vast majority of available movies' resolution is limited not by the 1080p final format, but by something else in the chain, like the film it was filmed on, the master, even the camera or lenses. Live-action movies especially suffer from this, since most of them are filmed still with film, and mm-for-mm, modern digital sensors are more efficient. In dark scenes, high-sensitivity film does horrible things for resolution, and in many of these cases a digital sensor will shine. Most of the time the very visible grain is not intended, like some people seem to think (especially snooty film reviewers). It is just a limitation of the format it was filmed in.
Movies like the Pixar ones and Corpse Bride ("filmed" with 8.2 MP Canon 1D Mark II cameras) do have the advantage of their recording formats being far superior to what 1080p offers. Otherwise, 1080p is already high enough that most movies will have a hard time matching its potential. With 480p DVDs, this was not a problem with most movies. That said, I have seen DVDs that are so bad that they're on a par with VHS, but they still have the digital/convenience advantage. Bluray has pretty much the same resolution advantage on DVD as DVD had on VHS, but it doesn't have the convenience one (actually, DVD has the advantage there!).
It is often argued that 35mm film has much higher potential than 1080p, and it may be the case, but somewhere along the line it seems most 35mm movies fail to deliver maximum res at 1080p. It may be the cropping, the grain, or the lenses, but "digital" movies (CGI especially), seem to fare much better. For instance even in modern movies like The Assassination of Jesse James, lens aberrations are abundant (granted in that movie it's probably intentional), but in 1080p movies I can see lens aberrations where in the DVD there were none. If you can see the aberrations, then resolution is already limited by the lens.
very well said, I have never seen what I'd imagine 6 X resolution to look like myself, but I would give it at least a 3-4 on some like Cars witch I think stood out best in all CGI and or movies on BD period. witch for me maybe the closest to 5 or 6 in what I'd imagine (expect) 6 X to look like, over the DVD version, up conversion, I see a 0 difference between Up converted DVD and no Up-conversion, The quality difference I saw was between the old analog RCA cables and the HDMI cable, wouldn't say it's even worth talking about, you can't have more quality then you start out with from the disc,