- Related Stories
-
Blu-ray a player in PlayStation pricing
May 9, 2006 -
Toshiba rolls out HD DVD notebook
May 9, 2006 -
Advisory group includes HD DVD, Blu-ray supporters
April 19, 2006 -
A DVD combo? Don't hold your breath
January 10, 2006 -
Blu-ray, HD DVD players: Clunky, unimpressive
January 9, 2006 -
FAQ: HD DVD vs. Blu-ray
October 1, 2005 -
All eyes on new DVDs' format war
July 11, 2005
Toshiba's HD DVD player is first volley in absurd format war among titans of movie, electronics, computer industries.
The New York Times
The story "Why the world doesn't need high-def DVDs" published May 13, 2006 at 6:00 AM is no longer available on CNET News.
Content from The New York Times expires after 7 days.
It is simple when viewing 480i/p DVD movies on a large picture ( mine is 110" ) the smearovision result simply sucks . This is why we need an HDTV resoultion 720P/1080i/1080P pixel count so when we view it on home theatre size screens we get stunning sharp picture .
The second part is the audio codecs have greatly improved and allow a much more dynamic surround sound track and and therefore enhance the audio experience for people who have hi-fi surround sound systems.
This in my case surpasses any Movie Theatre in my city of Ottawa ,Canada interms of total picture and surround sound experience.
to one, so the size factor is a moot point to them. Likewise, even
folks who have a surround system that's been laid out properly
don't get that much use from them because, on the whole, most
movies don't really make use of the 5/6/7 speaker field during
the final mixdown. (This is from my own experience, mind, and
not empirical data.)
Essentially, the majority of the DVD user base will need to be
convinced that the current standard DVD format is "bad" before
they'll go and spend a few hundred bucks on upgraded hardware
and software.
If the winning format manages to build backward compatibility
in to the player (that is, allow the player to play all DVD format
discs in whatever region the player it sold in) then the current
market might be a bit more easily pursuaded. Otherwise it's
going to be a long uphill fight.
It is simple when viewing 480i/p DVD movies on a large picture ( mine is 110" ) the smearovision result simply sucks . This is why we need an HDTV resoultion 720P/1080i/1080P pixel count so when we view it on home theatre size screens we get stunning sharp picture .
The second part is the audio codecs have greatly improved and allow a much more dynamic surround sound track and and therefore enhance the audio experience for people who have hi-fi surround sound systems.
This in my case surpasses any Movie Theatre in my city of Ottawa ,Canada interms of total picture and surround sound experience.
to one, so the size factor is a moot point to them. Likewise, even
folks who have a surround system that's been laid out properly
don't get that much use from them because, on the whole, most
movies don't really make use of the 5/6/7 speaker field during
the final mixdown. (This is from my own experience, mind, and
not empirical data.)
Essentially, the majority of the DVD user base will need to be
convinced that the current standard DVD format is "bad" before
they'll go and spend a few hundred bucks on upgraded hardware
and software.
If the winning format manages to build backward compatibility
in to the player (that is, allow the player to play all DVD format
discs in whatever region the player it sold in) then the current
market might be a bit more easily pursuaded. Otherwise it's
going to be a long uphill fight.
right on the mark, I have a few quibbles with this notion of DVDs
being good enough.
DVD do not provide "brilliant picture". Their picture quality is
limited by the ancient NTSC video standard, and is basically the
same as what LaserDisc format provided since 1978. I, for one,
believe in progress and do not want to be stuck with 1978 video
quality from now on.
The whole transition to HDTV has been going on for years now.
Most TV stations are broadcasting some shows in HD. Stores
are full of big, wide-screen sets hanging on the walls. Cable
and satellite are showing HD. You can now get PVRs that record
HD. Everything is coming together. . . except some practical
way of buying or renting movies! The HD disc format is literally
years overdue, it's the main thing holding back HDTV.
As for planned obsolescence . . . Nobody forced you to throw
out all your old VHS movies and buy everything again on DVD.
Nobody is going to force you to replace all your DVDs with HD
discs.
The good news is that HD is the end of that cycle. With HD you
can view the whole back catalog of movies -- going back to the
1930s or even further -- pretty much the way they were meant
to be seen in theaters. HD is the end of the line, there's
nowhere to go after that. Oh, there could be 3D in the future, or
some kind of IMAX-like format, or even Smell-O-Vision, who
knows? But none of those things will make My Fair Lady look or
sound any better than it does in HD.
right on the mark, I have a few quibbles with this notion of DVDs
being good enough.
DVD do not provide "brilliant picture". Their picture quality is
limited by the ancient NTSC video standard, and is basically the
same as what LaserDisc format provided since 1978. I, for one,
believe in progress and do not want to be stuck with 1978 video
quality from now on.
The whole transition to HDTV has been going on for years now.
Most TV stations are broadcasting some shows in HD. Stores
are full of big, wide-screen sets hanging on the walls. Cable
and satellite are showing HD. You can now get PVRs that record
HD. Everything is coming together. . . except some practical
way of buying or renting movies! The HD disc format is literally
years overdue, it's the main thing holding back HDTV.
As for planned obsolescence . . . Nobody forced you to throw
out all your old VHS movies and buy everything again on DVD.
Nobody is going to force you to replace all your DVDs with HD
discs.
The good news is that HD is the end of that cycle. With HD you
can view the whole back catalog of movies -- going back to the
1930s or even further -- pretty much the way they were meant
to be seen in theaters. HD is the end of the line, there's
nowhere to go after that. Oh, there could be 3D in the future, or
some kind of IMAX-like format, or even Smell-O-Vision, who
knows? But none of those things will make My Fair Lady look or
sound any better than it does in HD.
right on the mark, I have a few quibbles with this notion of DVDs
being good enough.
DVD do not provide "brilliant picture". Their picture quality is
limited by the ancient NTSC video standard, and is basically the
same as what LaserDisc format provided since 1978. I, for one,
believe in progress and do not want to be stuck with 1978 video
quality from now on.
The whole transition to HDTV has been going on for years now.
Most TV stations are broadcasting some shows in HD. Stores
are full of big, wide-screen sets hanging on the walls. Cable
and satellite are showing HD. You can now get PVRs that record
HD. Everything is coming together. . . except some practical
way of buying or renting movies! The HD disc format is literally
years overdue, it's the main thing holding back HDTV.
Yes, I see a need for high-def discs -- and that's what makes it
so frustrating to see all this nonsense the industry is piling onto
them: draconian DRM, down-rezzing, the whole format war.
And, as the article notes, still not being able to skip the FBI
warning. If the companies really want their products to be a
success, why are they jerking us (consumers) around this way?
As for planned obsolescence . . . Nobody forced you to throw
out all your old VHS movies and buy everything again on DVD.
Nobody is going to force you to replace all your DVDs with HD
discs.
The good news is that HD is the end of that cycle. With HD you
can view the whole back catalog of movies -- going back to the
1930s or even further -- pretty much the way they were meant
to be seen in theaters. HD is the end of the line, there's
nowhere to go after that. Oh, there could be 3D in the future, or
some kind of IMAX-like format, or even Smell-O-Vision, who
knows? But none of those things will make My Fair Lady look or
sound any better than it does in HD.
right on the mark, I have a few quibbles with this notion of DVDs
being good enough.
DVD do not provide "brilliant picture". Their picture quality is
limited by the ancient NTSC video standard, and is basically the
same as what LaserDisc format provided since 1978. I, for one,
believe in progress and do not want to be stuck with 1978 video
quality from now on.
The whole transition to HDTV has been going on for years now.
Most TV stations are broadcasting some shows in HD. Stores
are full of big, wide-screen sets hanging on the walls. Cable
and satellite are showing HD. You can now get PVRs that record
HD. Everything is coming together. . . except some practical
way of buying or renting movies! The HD disc format is literally
years overdue, it's the main thing holding back HDTV.
Yes, I see a need for high-def discs -- and that's what makes it
so frustrating to see all this nonsense the industry is piling onto
them: draconian DRM, down-rezzing, the whole format war.
And, as the article notes, still not being able to skip the FBI
warning. If the companies really want their products to be a
success, why are they jerking us (consumers) around this way?
As for planned obsolescence . . . Nobody forced you to throw
out all your old VHS movies and buy everything again on DVD.
Nobody is going to force you to replace all your DVDs with HD
discs.
The good news is that HD is the end of that cycle. With HD you
can view the whole back catalog of movies -- going back to the
1930s or even further -- pretty much the way they were meant
to be seen in theaters. HD is the end of the line, there's
nowhere to go after that. Oh, there could be 3D in the future, or
some kind of IMAX-like format, or even Smell-O-Vision, who
knows? But none of those things will make My Fair Lady look or
sound any better than it does in HD.
1. the HD-DVD/Blu-ray squabble is resolved - and NO dual
formals
2. Prices are reduced to realistic values
3. DRM is abandoned as draconian
4. Connections are simplified, and unrestricted
I assume that the big format DVD manufacturers have some
intention of including me a a customer. That is okay as long as
they come up with products worth buying. So far, they haven't
started.
1. the HD-DVD/Blu-ray squabble is resolved - and NO dual
formals
2. Prices are reduced to realistic values
3. DRM is abandoned as draconian
4. Connections are simplified, and unrestricted
I assume that the big format DVD manufacturers have some
intention of including me a a customer. That is okay as long as
they come up with products worth buying. So far, they haven't
started.
HD just isn't worth the cost. Yes, it's a big improvement over
standard DVD and TV but at what a cost! Re-buy all your DVD's at
up to twice the price, then buy an HDTV at somewhere in the
neighborhood of 10 times the price!?!
That is not logical.
HD just isn't worth the cost. Yes, it's a big improvement over
standard DVD and TV but at what a cost! Re-buy all your DVD's at
up to twice the price, then buy an HDTV at somewhere in the
neighborhood of 10 times the price!?!
That is not logical.
2 Key reasons why new formats fail:
- Price to upgrade
- DRM Overkill
Why should a consumer pay more for less because they don't have a super secure digital connection for Audio or Video?
2 Key reasons why new formats fail:
- Price to upgrade
- DRM Overkill
Why should a consumer pay more for less because they don't have a super secure digital connection for Audio or Video?
______________________________
R.K.
http://www.Remove-All-Spyware.com
______________________________
R.K.
http://www.Remove-All-Spyware.com
New York Times - All The News Fit To Lie About.
New York Times - All The News Fit To Lie About.
Was it when reporters started publishing opinion as news stories? Was it when some reporters just plain made up stories? Was it when the news being reported was spun with a political agenda? Perhaps it was "news" stories like this one that don't actually contain any news at all.
Probably more cynical than ever.
- Why the world doesn'n need the New York Times
- by grangerfx May 13, 2006 11:21 AM PDT
- When did you first become cynical about the press?
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- this is not a "news" story, it's opinion
- by May 15, 2006 9:25 AM PDT
- Perhaps you fail to understand the difference between opinion and news. This is a column, opinion, not news. Certainly there are plenty of "news" stories in the NYT that contain a lot of opinion, which is wrong. But in this case, the writer is clearly offering opinion. It's a review. Hard to do those without telling people what you t hink.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (80 Comments)Was it when reporters started publishing opinion as news stories? Was it when some reporters just plain made up stories? Was it when the news being reported was spun with a political agenda? Perhaps it was "news" stories like this one that don't actually contain any news at all.
Probably more cynical than ever.