If DVD Is Dead, What's Next? 652
uglysad writes "The Age has a piece discussing the fact that, from the home entertainment industry's standpoint, the DVD is dead. So what is next? From the article 'It will come as a shock to film fans who have spent their Christmases stocking up on their movie collections, but the technology industry is in agreement: the DVD is dead. Consumer electronics companies have begun to show off what they believe will be the next generation of home video technologies. But despite the common belief that the DVD is history, the industry is split over what the next step should be.'"
whatever (Score:5, Insightful)
just like hdtv (Score:4, Insightful)
HD-DVD (Score:4, Insightful)
Article summary (Score:3, Insightful)
Your options are
- Blu-Ray
- HD-DVD
Nobody wants a format war.VHS has just finally died off (Score:3, Insightful)
They wish... (Score:2, Insightful)
Fine. (Score:5, Insightful)
what? you don't have the replacement out yet? well, you guys just fucked yourselves then didn't you.
Industry is in for a surprise... (Score:5, Insightful)
Someday HD DVDs (of one format or the other) will be the norm, but I'm quite sure this is going to be a much slower process (far slower than VHS->DVD IMO) than the studios seem to realize and will be driven more via a trickle of sales as people replace old TVs and DVDs with new models (which support old and new formats). In the meantime, they better keep cranking out those Plain Old DVDs.
1. Exaggeration 2. ??? 3. Profit! (Score:5, Insightful)
Exaggerating death throes isn't meant to end sales, gods no. If that suddenly happened Bush would probably have to slash taxes and then tell everyone to take that $300 out and buy a stack of DVDs (except anything he finds morally repugnant, such as gay cowboys). The MPAA would have to suddenly circle the wagons, up-end the Bucket 'O Lawyers and proclaim the fall-off is the result of rampant piracy.
Nope, nothing like that.
What they mean to do is push the new HD-DVD or Blu Ray technology, even if it's not on the store shelves just yet. What's desired is to whip up a frenzy -- to make it a self fulfilling prophecy.
Anyone remember (the late) Richard Pryor as the Wiz, changing the colours? Red is dead, wouldn't be seen in green, etc.
DVD is dead, long live DVD! (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed (Score:4, Insightful)
This guy is making stupid generalizations to draw attention.
Re:HD-DVD (Score:3, Insightful)
Not the industry's decision (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because they want us to buy more, newer, less reliable, more expensive shit doesn't mean we will.
DVD is going to stick around (Score:5, Insightful)
I think for purposes of this argument, we can fairly say that if it's not given at least an aisle at Best Buy, it's dead. LP's are dead as a doornail. VHS tapes will be soon. But I can't imagine the DVD section at Best Buy going away within the next three years. Keep in mind it's in the interests of the electronics industry to have DVD die off as soon as possible. And despite the fact that the MPEG-2 encryption was a rush job and has long since been blown away by newer codecs, DVD's remain an outstanding technology.
Whatever the next standard is, it won't have the clear advantages over DVD that DVD had over VHS. The several hundred million consumers who already own DVD players and stacks of DVDs have no urgent reason to jump to the next standard -- not until most of these people own high-def Televisions. DVD will be with us for some time.
Re:whatever (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe so, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to purchase new mainstream titles on VHS. And as for the niche releases on a smaller scale, you've no chance.
I hope that this time, the average consumer rises up and says "no". I think the reason that everyone happily bought into DVD was that it was such a huge leap from VHS - so many more features to make the switchover worthwhile. It was maybe 15 years since VHS started to become popular. This time, less than 10 years since DVD hit the big-time, what are the big reasons to switch? Increased space (more naff behind-the-scenes docos and dull commentaries)? Hmm. High-def? That's probably the only decent advantage you could point at.
And strangely enough, what's the hardware industry currenly falling over themselves to sell us? HDTVs. I truly hope that this time, the average Joe sees what we have seen for many years, that is the content producers repeatedly selling us the same stuff on different media.
Re:DVD is going to stick around (Score:3, Insightful)
Three years ago, you probably could have said, "I can't imagine the VHS section at Best Buy going away within the next three years."
I should be so healthy... (Score:4, Insightful)
The technology industry agrees that DVD is dead? Alrighty then...
How many companies have stopped producing DVD players?
How many stores have stopped selling DVDs?
How many DVD pressing factories have shut down?
Where can I buy a next-gen media player (HD-DVD, Blu-Ray, whatever)?
WTF do they mean when they say DVD is dead?
I wouldn't be so hasty... (Score:3, Insightful)
Despite what the industry says, I'm betting on at least 4 years before I really have to worry about my precious DVD's being truly obsolete.
Ah, well, you misread the tone (Score:5, Insightful)
The movie industry hates DVD for the same reason it hates unadulterated CD: the pirates have cracked it so thoroughly that the studios might as well post the disk images on mininova themselves.
Only to those who can't get enough $$$ out if it.. (Score:5, Insightful)
DVD is only dead to the greedy who aren't happy with the deflation in profit margins, due to the huge array of competition from everywhere, including scads of historical movies and TV programs and imported foreign content. They prefer to think it's not due to the competition but to piracy, but they're wrong. When you consider the time required to copy DVDs, its probably actually cheaper to just by a legit copy. Sure, there may be some bootleggers out there who are showing up with counterfits at flea markets, and a few downloaders who will D/L a movie to watch just because they can, not because it's convenient. But not enough to explain the hit big media is taking in the pocketbook, despite their claims.
Big media figures if they start up something newer and better they can get us all to transition to it and spend more $$$. However, while I think it could mean a short term windfall, I'm not convinced that HD gives you enough additional value to make it worth the transition-- most of what I like to watch already exists and isn't in HD format, I have no interest in spending extra $$$ just to see the modern crap that's mostly written by ad executives.
The DVD is not just going to go away, there's a huge amount of content out there that, even if the disks and the players start dying out, we'll be able to back them up on new storage mediums and still preserve them. And, much of the content remains worth watching, in fact, mostly more so than what's targeted for HD.
But let them pull out all the stops. And maybe there'll be suckers who will buy into it, but if I ever do I'll be about the last to do so, after the cost has dropped to about what DVDs are going for now...
They only wish it was dead because while it's alive it's a low-cost content rich alternative to the high-cost content poor HD market...
No exposed bits and solid-state (Score:3, Insightful)
If it is like a pen-drive, then the technology inside does not matter such that it can change. Only the interface has to stay the same.
A disk, especially a 5 inch disk is too bulky. Plus, it is too easy to scratch the surface and the technology determines the interface. You cannot increase the number of groves (or whatever they call them now) without needing a new interface. A pen-drive-like interface does not care how many groves or how much RAM is inside. Only the "plug" and outer body has to remain the same. Inside it can use bacteria, pizza, or gerbal poop to store info. It ain't matter.
However, I must say that USB is a little awkward to insert. But, I have not seen something significantly better to replace it as an interface. So a pen-drive shape it is in the right direction.
Re:Industry is in for a surprise... (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the movies studios are seriously overestimating how much people care about quality. Sure, there will always be the high end types that always have to have the latest and greatest home theater equipment - the kind of people who bought laserdiscs back in the pre-DVD days. But the vast majority of people just want to watch the movie, and will do so via the path of least resistance - it's convenience that matters, not quality.
The quality difference between DVD and HD is so marginal even I can barely see a difference, and HD-DVD/BluRay offers exactly *no* additional convenience that a DVD doesn't offer now (and depending on the DRM scheme they settle on, they stand to be a hell of a lot *less* convenient).
The "next" format is going to be some form of digital download, probably around the same level of quality that a DVD offers now. My prediction is that both BluRay and HD-DVD are going to go the way of the laser disk, at least as far as buying movies on them is concerned. They'll find a niche market of high end consumers and that's it.
When did this happen? (Score:2, Insightful)
Even with HD-DVD or Blu-ray looming around the corner, the bottom line is that DVD media will be supported on these newer devices.
If your talking about the end of using physical media for distributing movies, then I think your are a long way off. Hollywood is not really embracing online digital media, whether its for music or movies. Too many competing standards are vying to be the dominant online media format, Apple's quicktime, Microsoft's WMV, DIVX, XVID, etc, etc, etc. None of these players are going to want to give up their proprietary format to create a single industry standard, at least not with regards to Microsoft and Apple. Having too many file formats being distributed over the net will just be annoying. Having to buy or install multiple products to get a chance to watch a Hollywood movie will cause consumers to protest.
Also, I have yet to see a truely decent mergin of the PC in the living room. Most are still klunky hacks that try and force a PC into a home theater component, complete with boxy case, noisy fans, and cumbersome operation. DVD's are popular because of the easy of use, slip a disk in a try and hit play. Until computers match that in terms of simplicity, using a PC to playback movies won't become popular.
So what are these people talking about, other then making some grandiose statement to attract attention? Physical distribution of movies may change, but its still digital media, whether its in the form of a DVD, or someone comes up with a square holographic cube, any new digital player will support the previous generation of media, there is no reason for DVD to die to become obsolete.
DVD will be dead when Hollywood stops fighting online distribution of copyrighted content, Apple and Microsoft embrace the same file format, and someone finds a way of turning the computer into a dirt simple consumer electronics component. As you can see, it ain't going to happen anytime soon.
Re:DVD is going to stick around (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:whatever (Score:4, Insightful)
Inspired with this success, however, I believe is the attempt to pull-back the expiry date for DVD and push *ANOTHER* media (and *ANOTHER* set of players to the market). Push it along with *ANOTHER* type of TV, and you have the two markets creating penetration for each other. In fact, this market is so lucrative the corporates are fighting over WHICH format to push. Sounds like a rip-off, if I ever saw one = just look at the faster, bigger computer we get thrust at us every few months, while the price of new-improved box stays roughly the same (after the initial, rationalising drop)
Re:hooray, DVD is dead! (Score:5, Insightful)
After getting screwed over because the industry decided they would not trust anyone with analog composite inputs, I'm not about to fork over more cash for new hardware just because my "HD Ready" TV was obsolete after less than one year when the industry decided they wanted to encrypt the signal to the TV.
Re:I don't think so (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Unlikely (Score:5, Insightful)
More like 3X, really.
But also people didn't have to buy a new TV to see the difference. They bought a DVD player - it looked better on their normal NTSC/PAL TV.
If they buy an HD-DVD or BluRay player, it's not really going to look any better unless they buy a new HD TV. And they're still pretty expensive. (Mind you, the player manufacturers seem to be solving this problem by making the players prohibitively expensive anyway.)
For me, a big difference with DVDs was the sound, too. Perhaps more so than the improved video. VHS sound is crap (inc. 'VHS HiFi') - I have pre-recorded VHS movies where I can barely make out the dialogue, and it's not like I've played those tapes to death. I'm talking about the first play through. DVD sound is great - and I have to ask, how much better can the sound actually get with HD-DVD? We're back into CD vs SACD territory there.
I think high definition DVDs will take over eventually, but not at the speed the industry thinks, especially while they're still dicking around with competing formats. Until one HD format is settled on, I think most people will steer clear (esp. when the people who actually bought 'HD Ready' TVs find out it won't work due to no HDMI connector, etc).
I'm so sick of this crap (Score:2, Insightful)
Ever seen the back of a receiver? Take a long look at those analog RCA jacks because that was the last time the industry ever got everyone on the same page at the same time. When was that? 1970 something. Since then, Sony and Toshiba fought it out over Toslink and SPDIF and the CD format. Dolby and DTS fought it over the new surround sound ... both of which were obsolete a few years later with 6.1 and 7.1 coming fast and furious. Component barely started to become a standard before it was supplanted by DVI, which lasted on a year or so before HDMI came along to replace it. Every day I deal with pissed off and frustrated consumers who can't get their DVDs, cable terminals, satellite receivers and TVs all working together because of incompatible technologies.
My computer is my entertainment center for a reason.
heh (Score:3, Insightful)
DVD is more than acceptable quality for 99.9999% of the population, and as a PC storage medium, it's fine.
For audio, it's fine.
The only problem I can see is that the built in copyprotection was cracked, and certain people aren't happy about that :)
Perhaps they mean that the dvd-player market is saturated, and they need something else to sell?
smash.
DVD was miles ahead of VHS; HD is barely a leap (Score:5, Insightful)
VHS wasn't commonly in homes until the mid 80s. Being tape, it required long winding time to find content, and had an inherently limited lifespan. Being analog, it could not be copied or duplicated more than a generation or two. Videotape in general was introduced with less than broadcast audio and video quality, and as better technology came out, VHS slowly progressed toward being near broadcast.
DVD was introduced with CD quality sound and digital video significantly better than standard broadcast. DVD's are more convenient, durable and smaller than VHS tapes. DVD also offers perfect copies across generations.
DVD was also quickly integrated into computers; playing DVD's from a PC or laptop using VGA or DVI to a computer display offers a very high quality video, competitive with HDTV. Since common DVDs are better than commonly broadcast video quality, and since little HD content available, and since HD displays are not commonplace, there's hardly demand for a new HD media.
Satellite providers have had the capacity to deliver HD for some time now, and have instead chosen to deliver more content at standard resolution. If, as that suggests, there is scant market for HD video, why do we need an HD media disc to suddenly replace DVDs?
The only real benefit HD-DVD and BlueRay offer over DVD is in data storage capacity and in DRM, and consumers don't look particularly needy for either. They already have hard drive storage in excess of HD-DVD's (recall than when CD-ROM arrived, it offered FAR more storage than hard disks of the day).
CD's certainly didn't disapear for SACD, and in fact most consumers have never seen or heard of SACD. And remember when Phillips (and others) were presenting the "future of audio cassette," which was suposed to replace audio tapes the way that CD had replaced records? Those products bombed.
If anything, I think there is more growth potential in HardDrive based DVRs to replace and expand upon the functions of VCRs, a job that DVD isn't very well equiped to perform given its slow and finicky write technology.
New iterations of the iPod, as a DVR, have the potential to serve new markets better than bigger DVDs. And as broadband becomes more commonplace, and faster bandwidth arrives, larger discs may not be that necessary after all.
I can already:
-get iPod sized movies on demand (via iTMS)
-get DVD quality movies on demand (via NetFlix)
-get TV style episodes and shorts on demand (via Tivo)
I can see those services migrate toward HD slowly without any need for HD discs along the way. Think of NetFlix using downloads and hard disks instead of discs and postage, and its hard to imagine what problem a HD-DVD standard would solve.
They want it dead SOOO BAD... (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that DVD is a "good enough" technology that there's not a compelling reason (for most people) to want anything different. The same with CDs. They tried to kill the CD format by trying SACD and other variations, but they don't understand that to 99.9% of the listening public, the CD is a "good enough" format for their music. Sadly, MP3 is also a "good enough" format for a vast majority of people, even at a low bitrate with a crummy encoder. Let's face it, when I'm in my car, the noise floor is so loud that MP3 is just fine.
So, they're doing the best to stay "on message" and try to convince us that it's dead because that's the only way they're going to get any more money out of the people who already are happy with the status quo.
Wolfenstien 3D and Doom were technically compelling content to make a lot of people buy new computers. I've yet to see a movie that made me want to upgrade my home theater.
For my part, DVD is just fine to watch the mediocre movies that they put out. Especially on a TV set, or (gosh forbid) a portable media player.
Re:Only to those who can't get enough $$$ out if i (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree that Hollywood is losing money because what they create is junk, and that watching the old stuff will keep most of us happy for a long time to come. Besides, your comments are just a little off, Hollywood is not seing a decline in DVD sales, they are seing a decline in Box Office sales. DVD sales are more than twice that of the Box Office.
You seem to imply that they want to push HD so that we will stop copying DVDs and start buying their cr@p, that is just not the case. In fact, Hollywood has seriously mixed feelings about HD. Why? Because they are afraid that it will make you and I stop going to the theatres. It probably will, but I do not think it will have a hugely negative impact on Hollywoods bottom line, they will just have to do business slightly differently.
Which brings us to:
most of what I like to watch already exists and isn't in HD format
Most of what you watch already exists, and in formats that are vastly superior to HD. It has been downconverted to DVD, but DVD is a pretty cr@ppy format for viewing on a big screen, try a DVD on a 50" screen, it actually looks pretty bad. Compare that to HD.
As HD is adopted, all your old stuff will also be released in HD, and believe me, you are not going to want to own a cr@ppy DVD once the HD version is out if it has been down converted well. Why do you think Sony bought the movie studio with the largest video library in the US? So that they can release all that old stuff on HD.
HD is coming, and once your TV size goes to 42", you are going to want to have it.
No its not (Score:2, Insightful)
Direct Transfer (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:DVD is going to stick around (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Only to those who can't get enough $$$ out if i (Score:5, Insightful)
Excuse me? Just because they call making less money than they though they would, and making less money than some other year "losing" money doesn't mean you have to help spread the lie.
HD is coming, and once your TV size goes to 42", you are going to want to have it.
My TV is going to grow? Amazing. Especially considering that it's just the right size for the spot it's in. I wonder how it will fit... Seriously though, we're a minimum of 5 years away from widespread HD adoption. It will probably be longer, since most people replace their TV after 10 years on average, but not everybody buying new TVs today are buying HD sets. Actually not even a majority are buying HD sets. 32" SD is the norm. The only reason the masses will buy HD media in that time frame is if it's the only media available. It won't be though, because all the HD players will be DVD compatable, and all the non-cartel members will keep publishing on DVD to maximize the potential market. The early push to HD media with extra DRM is going to open the door for "independant" creators and publishers, and the *IAA member companies are going to see their market share decrease more and more.
Re:DVD is going to stick around (Score:5, Insightful)
Who are we to refuse?
There's a niche for everything (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:DVD is going to stick around (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed true. It is the convenience of random access that disks have over tapes that made most consumers switch to DVD and audio CDs. The lack of wear when played and the superior quality were bonuses, but not the driving points for consumers to re-buy all or at least much the old content over again. The old TV's used with VCRs worked and still do just fine with that new DVD player and the audio systems already in use were useable with the digital audio CDs.
The new formats will really only have better quality as the reason to switch to the new technology. If a customer does not also buy an expensive big screen HD TV, the new format will not do much more than the current DVDs do. Much of the material in the vaults of the movie companies would not benefit consumers in noticeable superior quality anyway.
The video equivalent of mp3, where a user an store a few thousand movies at today's DVD quality in a holographic chip the size of a compact flash card, storing about 100 terabyes or so, at about the current price of one might be a compelling reason to buy new movie storage equipment.
All I can say is.... (Score:2, Insightful)
I did it from VHS to DVD which was fairly understandable since most of my video tapes showed their age and DVD did bring a whole new experience with 5.1 sound, interactive content, etc. but I have a HD TV and while I welcome HD content it's not compelling enough for me to want to replace many of the DVD's I own now.
DVD is not dead. (Score:3, Insightful)
I own two HDTV sets and I am not fanatical about the transition to HD-DVD / BluRay. It is going to happen eventually, but considering the crap that has graced the big screen in the past 5 years I would rather just wait until a movie is on Showtime HD, HBO HD, INHD, etc... than pay $5+ extra for a movie that was not even worth seeing in the theatre. Movie studios will not begin to reauthor the good, but older, movies until there is a sufficient player base and there will not be a sufficient player base until there is content worth investing in a new player / TV (for some) to watch.
That said, there are a couple of people who actually buy UMDs and actually I know one of them. Despite the lackluster demand, movie studios continue to publish UMD videos. Which leads me to believe that HD-DVD and BluRay will be a similar boat, it will take studios years to figure out which format the consumer actually prefers. In that time, I am sure we will see hybrid HD-DVD / BluRay players enter the market to fill the gap that SONY and Toshiba could have easily filled before costing the consumer. BluRay discs may be more expensive to produce for the publisher, which is partly why Toshiba was such a
Add to that... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Industry is in for a surprise... (Score:3, Insightful)
None of those movies were filmed with DVD in mind, or even with home viewing in mind.
Yes, they were filmed with *THEATRES* in mind, back in the days when theatre screens were gigantic. Back then, movies were filmed on extremely high resolution, fine grain film stock, and they filmed using arc lamps to provide the enormous amounts of light necessary to expose the ultra-high resolution film stock.
It's difficult to compare film resolution to video resolution because they are largely apples and oranges. If you do a google search, you'll find a lot of opinions in the 20-50 equivalent megapixel range. When motion picture studios render computer graphics for transfer to 35mm film, and want to avoid pixelation in the release prints, the images are rendered at 6K x 4K, or 24 megapixels per frame. This is also the resolution used when motion picture negatives are scanned for restoration.
Also, modern motion picture film has a 1000:1 contrast ratio. Older black and white film stocks used much more silver than today, and had an even higher contrast ratio.
The highest available HDTV resolution is 1920x1080, or 2 megapixels per frame, or 1/12th the effective resolution of motion picture film. It's not even close.
The negatives will surely have deteriorated over time
That would have been true 10 or 15 years ago. By now, most of the studios have recognized the value of their libraries, and a large number of classic movies have been restored. Ted Turner took a lot of heat for "colorizing" his motion picture holdings, but the first step he took on each movie was to pay for a complete, top-quality black and white film restoration/preservation of the best existing preprint material.
The amout of deterioration depends on how well the negatives were processed and stored. Technicolor dye transfer prints do not fade, and if a studio has one in mint condition, it can provide a perfect color record. (George Lucas lucked out in that Star Wars was printed by Technicolor in Britain using the old dye-transfer process, so a few prints have survived with perfect, unfaded color. This allowed him to complete a near-perfect restoration of the film.)
Color films from the 50s to mid-80s filmed on Eastman negative film have problems with color fading (which can be corrected in most cases.) In the mid-80s Kodak improved their film stocks, and greatly reduced color fading. Restored movies don't have "spots [and] hairs on the film", because those are not on the camera negatives. When a movie is completed, the hand-spliced-together camera negative (which has been only ever handled in a clean room with cotton gloves) is used to make a small number of high-resolution interpositives. Then the camera negative goes into a film can and into a climate controlled vault.
Those interpositives are used to make a larger number of internegatives, which are then used to print all of the release prints that are sent to theatres and gather the "spots and hairs" that you are referring to. If, for some reason, the camera negatives are overused, and become dirty and scratched, the dirt and debris can be cleaned off, and scratches on the film are eliminated by "wet-gate" printing, where the film is wetted with a liquid just prior to scanning that makes the scratches disappear. You are seriously underestimating the motion picture restoration industry. Given enough money, virtually any motion picture, in any condition can be made to look like new *in the theatre.*
In short, wait and see. Old movies are going to look fantastic when scanned for HDTV. And the best news is that they are going to look even better for about the next 5 generations of consumer video media.
No consumer video system has even come close to the image resolution of motion picture film, and HDTV is no exception.
DVD is good enough (Score:5, Insightful)
DVD won't die and be replaced by HD-DVD or Blu-Ray. They were predicting that CD would die and be replaced with SACD or DVD-Audio, and that didn't happen.
Even though my DVD player supports DVD-Audio, I don't have a single DVD-Audio disc. I don't even have the player hooked up to support it. Why not? Because the DRM is so cripplingly inconvenient, it's not worth it. With a CD I can listen on my iPod, stream over my home network and listen at any computer, listen on my PDA, play the CD in the car, make mix CDs for the car, and so on. With DVD-Audio, they won't even allow digital feed from the player to the amp, so I'd need to buy a set of extra analog cables, I'd get lower quality (my amp has much better D to A than my player), and I wouldn't be able to rip the audio conveniently. And though some 'goldenears' folks will disagree, CD is basically good enough.
Similarly, DVD is good enough for the vast majority of people. I actually have an HDTV, and with a well-encoded DVD and a player with a good upconverter, the limiting factor on the image quality is either the source material or my eyesight. When I can see the fingerprints on the glass pane used for the 'floating pen' effect in "2001"--and that's a famously poorly encoded DVD--I know that there's really no great need for finer resolution. I can see the film grain on "Lawrence of Arabia" already, I don't need to see it any better. I can read the paperwork on Sam Lowry's desk in "Brazil". The resolution is just fine. Now, let's have more good movies...
Re:whatever (Score:3, Insightful)
And, even more important was touted as ever-lasting: CDs and DVDs do not, for most practical purposes, wear out when handled with care. Everyone who grew up with vinyl and cassette and VHS knows what it's like to lose audible audio quality over time: the goddamn things wear out with casual everyday use! CDs and DVDs, hell, it's dead easy to keep them in prime condition forever and a day with next to no effort at all.
That is what sold a huge chunk of us on those formats.
The next format offers no additional advantage. Higher quality, sure, but at what price? When you've already got a couple K invested in your home theatre, and you're watching a nice sharp picture with CD-quality surround sound, on a reasonably good television... is ultra highdef worth the financial hit of starting all over again?
Ain't in this house, at any rate. If I were going to sink $2K into something, it'd be a audiophile music system. Or a maximum games box for UT2007. Or another motorcycle.
Re:Industry is in for a surprise... (Score:3, Insightful)
And so what you'll get is films that have been extensively digitally remastered, a la Star Wars. When the DVDs of the original trilogy came out there were lots of Web pages comparing frames from the new prints to the old ones. In my opinion, and that of a lot of people who grew up watching those films, not all the digital retouching was for the better -- and I'm not even talking about the scenes Lucas added or replaced.
Creating an HD-DVD of an older movie with picture quality up to the standards that have been hyped for the format is going to be extremely costly. Thus, I predict you won't see HD-DVD "Special Editions" of classic movies appearing in any particular hurry -- not any faster than they showed up for plain ol' DVD, at least. When they do appear, I'm willing to bet that a lot of the film-buff types, whom you might think are the ones most eagerly awaiting the new format, are going to be disappointed. But hey, Hollywood ... prove me wrong.
Re:Read only movie chips-flash card sized=landfill (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:whatever (Score:1, Insightful)