Holy Cow! I thought it was gonna be closer to $1000...now I'm really curious about the PS3.

"...when the PS3 comes out for $400 and supports BD content...."

It's not out yet, even if they've promised it doesn't mean it will be there. At least someone (Pioneer) has come out and said "this is what the first generation will cost"

Let me see,
$1,800 for a BD player to play expesnive BD disks or $470 to play HiDef using el cheapo existing DVD technology that we can make NOW with existing hardware and Vegas.
Which would you prefer your clients to be buying?

Pioneer may quickly realize their "suggested price" is a bad suggestion.

I think thats about what i paid for my first VCR in 1978 or so.

"I think thats about what i paid for my first VCR in 1978 or so."

True, but there was no similar technology at the time.

Think of it this way -- the only thing different about an HD version of a movie compared to its current DVD version will be a slightly better picture, and I do mean "slightly" compared to 480p. It's noticeable, but it's not face-slappingly so. OK, maybe 192kb sound (maybe), but again, you need pretty high-end equipment to appreciate THAT difference.

There will also be room for more extras, but you know what? After a while, DVD bonus features all run together. I have to REALLY like a movie these days to even bother.

So, what's the incentive for an immediate move to HD DVD? Not very much. Certainly not at that price point. Whereas a VCR in 1978 gave you something extremely useful you never had before, an HD DVD gives you only a little bit over your current hardware. I'd wager that only a few will be interested in replacing their full DVD libraries with HD versions. I know I won't, because it just isn't enough better to warrant it.

$1800 isn't going to move many players. I'm as tech-centric as the next guy; I was one of the very early DVD adopters, but HD DVD just doesn't move me enough to shell out the R&D recovery geld.

(But if I were a betting man, I'd wager that HD-DVD will win out over Blu-Ray, solely because Blu-Ray's technical advantages don't outweigh its cost of conversion.)

I posted two other threads that show HD DVD for $499. No brainer against an $1800 over protected product.

.......................It's noticeable, but it's not face-slappingly

i totally agree, maybe my eyes are bad i dont knaow ,but,, doesnt rock my world.

Perhaps you haven't seen perfect HD without cable or satellite recompression?

It's just about the most fun you can have with your pants on.

Resolution/clarity/detail is just one part of it.

The other major part is the color space. It feels much richer, and you quickly come to think of SD as looking like stonewashed jeans.

I am learning more and more about how to make SD DVDs look good on a HD screen, this technology is also improving.

Finally, I am baffled by the announcement of a $1800 BD player. Is it insanity or a placeholder?

" Is it insanity or a placeholder?"

Im voting stupidity.

One thing about the BluRay is 1080P. That is a big difference but not a grand worth.

JJK

And Sony offers 1080i HDV cameras? Im confused.

This makes it more likely that they will accelerate work on a Z2 1080p camera.

The Pioneer BR player that cost $1,800 is in their ELITE line of machines. It's their top of the line stuff. It could play 1080P unlike HDVD which tops at 1080i. Below is a link to the announcement.

http://ces.betanews.com/entry/Pioneer_Preps_1800_Bluray_Player/1136422941

Offering a 50GB disc capacity thanks to dual 25GB layers, the BDP-HD1 player will deliver DVD content in 1920x1080p, along with IP connectivity for enjoying protected content currently stored on the PC. The player will send both audio and video through a single HDMI connector, and feature DTS-HD and Dolby Digital support, with WMA, MP3 and LPCM audio playback. But such features won't come cheap: Pioneer's BDP-HD1 sports a suggested retail price of $1800 USD and will be available starting in June.

Pioneer also has a BR player for the PC that will be selling this month.
http://us.gizmodo.com/gadgets/pcs/pioneers-bluray-pc-drive-beats-new-year-145380.php

Release - It's actually a BR(2x) Writer, 25GB of storage.
-------Edit-------
http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/pio/pe/images/portal/cit_3424/292131518POV_BDR-101A.pdf
-------Edit-------

Samsung is coming out with their own for $1,000.
http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/04/bd-1000-first-u-s-blu-ray-player/

One thing is for sure, I won't be buying either BR or HDVD this year. By 2007, it should settle down to the point where a decent player will cost around $200-300.

>"One thing is for sure, I won't be buying either BR or HDVD this year. By 2007, it should settle down to the point where a decent player will cost around $200-300."

Yes, I'm sure many will wait like this. The trouble is, if we video producers buy playback machines in '07, how long will it be before our customers do? - Some of my clients have only recently bought DVD players!

Some of my clients have only recently bought DVD players!

So you wait for the last stragglers before deciding for yourself? :O)

- no, I'm an early adopter myself - I'm just wondering how long before I'll be able to use it as a delivery medium.

For work -

I'm leaning towards buying a PC BR drive just for storage backup. I'm waiting get my hands on those 80GB+ discs. I just need another storage medium other than buying external HDD's. Just bought a Maxtor 300GB 16mb cache external HDD at Staples for $300 just before Christmas for a new project - it's now at 200GB.

For home -

I'm leaning towards the PS3 with it's BR drive built in. Won't be as good as a dedicated machine, but it'll due. It won't be good as that Pioneer Elite, but that's too rich for my blood. Especially, knowing that in one or two years quality BR drives will be in the hundreds of dollars.

Heres my plan and I am sure many others. New technology that is unproven at this point. Sorry but I dont want to spend $1800 on first version products. Because you know a year later, all bugs and quirks will be worked out and obviously lower cost and then Im out mucho dinero and have a bald spot in my hair.

Ill probably go with the cheaper HD DVD in the beginning. $500 vs $1800 means I would have an extra $1300 to buy HD content. Ill then hold off and wait til the PS3 launch, grab one for roughly $400 and then compare what I like better. But I have a feeling Ill use BD for storage and HD DVD for viewing.

I dunno about anyone else, but IHD looks very promising in added interaction with the user.

DVD player shipments surpassed VCR shipments in September 2001. This was over four years after DVD players were first shipped in this country (March 1997). The DVD player was the most successful consumer electronic launch in history, and had the advantage that HD does not have, of having 100% compatibility with every TV set in use. I don't know what percentage of US households have HD sets, but it is obviously not 100%. In addition, much of the movie material could easily be re-worked from the laserdisc transfers and other SD efforts directly to DVD. By contrast, the older movies will have to be re-transferred to make them available in the HD format. Thus, software for HD will take longer to ramp up than it did for SD DVD. This is not meant to imply that HD delivery (Blu-ray, etc.) will fail (like laserdiscs did), but only that it will take quite a bit longer to penetrate US households than DVD.

I didn't get massive numbers of requests for DVD copies until roughly the time when DVD player sales surpassed VCR sales (that September 2001 date). Thus, using DVD penetration and rollout as a template, I expect it will be at least 2-3 years before we begin to see anything like critical mass, and probably 4-5 years (at a minimum) before we get more requests for HD discs than SD discs. It's almost impossible to argue otherwise, unless you want to make the assumption that HD rollout will be more successful and will happen faster than DVD. This seems highly unlikely, not only for the reasons already mentioned, but also given the confusion surrounding the competing formats.

My FX1 arrived today and I do my first shoot next week, but I may do the whole thing in SD because the overhead in dealing with HD to SD conversions is more than I want to deal with. I've gotten spoiled with quick turnarounds for DV projects.

"This is not meant to imply that HD delivery (Blu-ray, etc.) will fail (like laserdiscs did), but only that it will take quite a bit longer to penetrate US households than DVD."

I have to disagree here. HD DVD and Blu will join the Laserdisc technology before either of them make a substantial penetration into the US households.

For the average homeowner, there's simply no incentive to buy an HD-DVD/Blu player. As you said, most don't have HD-ready TV's or displays. The cost of the content and the cost of the hardware is going to put HD delivery squarely in the few households that want and can afford the best technology and performance.

What's most often overlooked is the "good enough" mentality of the vast majority of average consumers. DVD's from Netflix or Hollywood Video are as good as they need or want. They won't upgrade until they are forced into it by failing equipment. And that could be ten years or more.

There's no way that Hollywood is not going to continue to release content on DVD's - there's just too many DVD players out there for them to ignore that market.

Steve Mann

I didn't get massive numbers of requests for DVD copies until roughly the time when DVD player sales surpassed VCR sales (that September 2001 date). Thus, using DVD penetration and rollout as a template, I expect it will be at least 2-3 years before we begin to see anything like critical mass, and probably 4-5 years (at a minimum) before we get more requests for HD discs than SD discs. It's almost impossible to argue otherwise, unless you want to make the assumption that HD rollout will be more successful and will happen faster than DVD. This seems highly unlikely, not only for the reasons already mentioned, but also given the confusion surrounding the competing formats.

John, I agree with you 100 percent and have been saying the same for some time, now. Yet, many here have ridiculed me for my stance.

My FX1 arrived today and I do my first shoot next week, but I may do the whole thing in SD because the overhead in dealing with HD to SD conversions is more than I want to deal with. I've gotten spoiled with quick turnarounds for DV projects.

Again, I am right there with you (with the exception of the FX1). So why have so many felt compelled to jump on the HD bandwagon so early? This is one thing I simply cannot understand.