Thanks riredale,

Sometimes as videographers our perspective gets skewed in terms of the practical aspects of these delivery formats. All of us want to be able to deliver the best looking video to our clients, but if our clients are the average consumer, we have to deal with what is practical. The theoretical technical specifications of formats seems to fall way down on the list IMO. If we want to deliver an event video to them that looks great the questions which arise first are:

1. Do they have the capacity to play them so they look as good as we want them to see them?

2. Is the media we are handing them compatible with the average device they will use?

Right now the compatibility and low cost player is in the realm of SD DVD and the customers often have more than one of them because they are so cheap. Upconverting players do a respectable job these days and their cost is comensurate with the non-upconverting players (within reason).

The trend toward larger screens that we saw a few years ago is reversing. Let me explain that:

The federal mandate for broadcast to be all digital was put off for two years. But it will go into effect on February 17, 2009. As of March 1, 2007, all television receivers shipped in interstate commerce or imported into the United States had to have a digital tuner. By May 25, 2007, the FCC required sellers of television receiving equipment that does not include a digital tuner to disclose at the point-of-sale that such devices include only an analog tuner, and therefore will require a digital-to-analog converter box to receive over-the-air broadcast television after Feb 17, 2009.

The higher cost of the televisions and the newer widescreen format meant that the average consumer would be buying a smaller screen (they are still measured diaginally) unless they opted to spend considerably more money. In order to utilize HD the screen sizes have to be at least 26 inches (which is a really small TV). 32" for now seems to be the most popular although if prices fall enough that could change. 32" is a small TV as well.

Next Christmas should be telling. If 42 inch sets and larger are cheap enough (unlikely) , then customers may be able to see some of what we are trying to provide them with in terms of HD content. Maybe. But we still need to know that they can also afford relatively cheap players of a standardized format that displays better looking video in a different format than what they are now used to. Better than upconverted SD DVD Video at the same price. And compatible with virtually all of their inexpensive HD players. So far I haven't seen anything that would indicate that trend.

Then there are the young people. It's a joke for anyone to believe that they care about HD content that much. This generation is into portability. Tiny Ipods, Cell Phones, etc. Most are perfectly content with watching video on the tiny screen of a video Ipod or a PSP as long as they can take it with them.
They are watching the program and not the device itself. Nor are they concerned with the technical specs of the video some of us are obsessed with.

The same is true of the people of our generation who do appreciate HD content. No matter how good a movie looks, a bad movie rears it's ugly head before 1/4 of the movie is played. In terms of the fifteen guests to my 120 inch screen home theater , one observation seems clear. When it comes to concerns over the equipment itself or adjustments while a movie is playing for sound, picture, or anything else the least patient with it are the women:

"Sit down and watch the movie for crying out loud. What did you come here for, to watch a movie or play with toys"?

John

Then there are the young people. It's a joke for anyone to believe that they care about HD content that much. This generation is into portability. Tiny Ipods, Cell Phones, etc. Most are perfectly content with watching video on the tiny screen of a video Ipod or a PSP as long as they can take it with them.
They are watching the program and not the device itself. Nor are they concerned with the technical specs of the video some of us are obsessed with.
--------------------------------


100% spot on!
And really, we're still in the beginnings of mobile/portable generation (and already it's impressive - to me at least).

is it fair to compare the sd to hd slice in time against the span of audio entertainment...

records: i know it's just personal opinion but to me nothing beats pulling out a record, dropping the needle, seeing and reading a nice big album cover. Nothing made you really listen longer/better than when you had to do some work for your music (playing records/45's). I kinda feel sad for the new gen who didn't experince this. I think a person enjoys the music more fully, it's a complete experience - inadvertantly more engaging.
But oh for it's arch enemy - the sun ;(

tape: mobile audio! well i was never a big fan per say I had my fair share of classics that would eventually get eaten requiring the old finger in hole winding downtime.
* sun will win in a fight here too ;(

CD: Introduced the "new and improved" (ugh) way of listening: hear a few seconds...FF...few more, skip, skip track, skip track). Or you could argue it started with consumer tape players (but even then it was work to do so).

mp3/etc. players: same listening problems/features of CD,... but now you've got playlists, you're now carrying enough tunes in a single unit for a road or world tour (and then some).
*same now applies to the many portable units with video.

* yes, overall radio/sat-radio is that bad (barring some talk radio ;)

in terms of video which one is HD against all this?
I'd say at best it's like 8-track moving to cassette tape (minus the length of life). Just enough wow to entice and change, yet not enough to remember or care too much about. That's just me, you might have a different answer.

And I also agree with that. I don't think people are anywhere near as tied up in quality as has been stated.... convenience is a much more important feature, and it's hard for me to believe that hi def is going to go much of anywhere at its price, its lack of convenience, and its inability to do much anything else but look good. Not withstanding, you need the right equipment to display it properly.... ie: better than a 42' TV, and the buying trend has shown that the sweet spot for hd TV's is somewhere between 36 and 42 inches (I have a 42" and 60" plasma..... Hi def isn't really worth it even at 42"). And the audio improvements are not recognized if you don't have the proper (and fairly expensive) 5.1 or 7.1 system

I got into hi def because I do video editing, but the Hollywood movies... well, I've already gone back to watching dvd's.... and they're just fine on an upscaler... even with the 60" plasma. Maybe if the studios decide to take the HI def quality level to its best it might be different, but for now....

Expect soon to see "deep" color on some movies. Hd 1080p with deep color will expand the high-end market for those HD lovers ;-) DVD had a slow start, there is nothing different here. Most business projections are on track for the current market. A lot of talk of SD=HD, same occurred with VHS=DVD crowd, its a losing position. Downloadables mobiles are not a real serious threat to HD, except for one time viewers.

DVD had a slow start,

Yes.... that's exactly right... and look at the HUGE number of advantages that dvd has over VHS, including the fact that all you had to do is unplug the vhs player and plug the dvd in its place.... or even plug the dvd player right into the vhs player.... and STILL a slow start.

Now I'm a video editor and I can see the hidden advantages behind the blue laser technology, but if you're just an average movie watcher, then the ONLY advantage is (at this point anyway) a slightly better picture quality.... IF you have the proper equipment, proper seating distance, proper room for the 5.1 sound.... etc

I think if the PRICE is right (in other words interchangeable with dvd) then there may be a fighting chance, but with the existing price, the economy going down the tubes and the too few advantages in the format change.... well, we *MAY* have another "laser disk" on our hands.

Blinky, I find myself disagreeing with at least 98% of what you say. I can easily tell the difference between a Blu-Ray disc and an upscaled DVD.

I've never seen a plasma TV at any price that I thought looked very good, so perhaps all your claims about upscaled DVDs looking as good as HD discs are just based on watching them on a pair of lousy looking plasma TVs. However, they do make good space heaters and I guess it does get cold up there...

"well, we *MAY* have another "laser disk" on our hands." ha, did you mean HD DVD ;-)

Its no secret that the DVD market is in decline, that's the whole reason the studios pushed HD, not for just improving the viewing experience. What scares most studios is the declining sales and profits from DVDs; they have been making big money off VHS, then DVDs and have become greedy with quick profits. Since 92/93, they have been locking down media and concepts of transfers,etc,,,, So, they will have a direct if not controlling interesting how their media makes money and how it generates long term returns. They just need the market to want the mproduct, so selling snake oil is not new, so old and new ideas, candles vs light bulbs, all makes enough noise----- letting a new, improve HD take the market.

I've never seen a plasma TV at any price that I thought looked very good, so perhaps all your claims about upscaled DVDs looking as good as HD discs are just based on watching them on a pair of lousy looking plasma TVs. However, they do make good space heaters and I guess it does get cold up there...

You're certainly entitled to your opinion... I can find 100's that would call you a bit out to lunch. Although I would GUESS that this is more a personal attempt at a put-down... but if I'm wrong.... Point of fact... both direct LCD and plasma offer the least amount of error since the pixels are viewed directly instead of amplified through lenses and bounced off a screen (or a mirror in the case of front projection)

As for upscaled dvd's... get yourself an HD DVD player and you will find out just how good upscaling can be.

BTW... what TV are you using?

"get yourself an HD DVD player and you will find out just how good upscaling can be.
" unfortunately that feature did not help save HD DVD. Upscaling is being pushed as "cheap HD" or poor man's HD. Soon, 6 months to 2 years, this "upscaling" will become a negative vs the real HD. 720p and SD will be viewed as outdated and out of style. Keep up with the Jones, will rise its ugly head, the HD market will grow. Its cheaper to complete with the neighbors over HD that with new cars for the middle class in the coming years. And individuals are always trying to one up each other, sad but true.

Apit said:
DVD had a slow start, there is nothing different here. Most business projections are on track for the current market. A lot of talk of SD=HD, same occurred with VHS=DVD crowd, its a losing position. Downloadables mobiles are not a real serious threat to HD, except for one time viewers.
======================
"While the format war is finally over, it seems that high-definition media still has a long way to go. According to Nielsen Media Research and Adams Media Research, the total high-definition software sales for the first two years are only half of what standard DVD's sales were for their first two years. There were 16.3 million standard DVD's sold in the first two years (1997-1998) and there have been only 8.3 million high-definition (both Blu-Ray and HD DVD) units sold in their first two years (2006-2007).

Analysts offered a few reasons for the slow start, including the fact that HDTV's aren't nearly as prevalent as standard TV's yet (26.5 million HDTV's to over 100 million standard TV's) and the fact that some people don't see much of a difference between high-def and standard, as opposed to the difference between VHS and standard DVD."

Source.

No mention of what some of the fanboys on this forum had claimed. That "format confusion" accounted for the poor sales of HD discs.

Nielsen will be conducting a study on Video Consumption "to observe how individuals consume traditional and emerging video platforms inside and outside the home."

“The migration of video usage beyond traditional television is an increasingly important issue for media companies, advertisers and their agencies,” said Paul Donato, Chief Research Officer for The Nielsen Company. “In a world where people increasingly watch programming online, on mobile devices and outside the home, this study will help us better understand how people are changing the way they consume media so that we can make informed decisions on how to measure it.”

John

unfortunately that feature did not help save HD DVD

That's not the issue here. It's a well known fact that the HD DVD player as well as the Oppo upscalers are about the best you can get for upscaling.... and those aren't my words.... they are instead the words of countless reviews that have been done on the subject.

Blink, I either own or have access to a variety of HD monitors. For casual viewing, I have a Vizio VU42LF 42" 1920x1080p LCD. For editing, I have a Sony XBR-960 34" HD "Super Fine Pitch" and a Sony BVMA20F1U, both are CRTs. I calibrate the XBR regularly and the BVM has a setup probe which allows it to auto-calibrate. I occasionally have access to a Sony BVML230, which is their new master series 23" LCD monitor, and a 70" SXRD rear-projector.

For upscaling DVDs, I have an AJA FS1 with an older Sony ES Series DVD player as well as my PS3 which does a decent job of upscaling. Nevertheless, DVDs are 720x480 and, at best, any upscaler is just guessing how to generate new pixels which were not there to begin with.

I have viewed and edited uncompressed HD video shot using high-end HD cameras with lenses that cost as much as a Lexus and watch this on broadcast HD monitors. I know how good HD can look and it's my opinion that plasma TVs just don't cut it. Maybe there's one out there that does, but I've yet to see it. Sony doesn't even make plasma TVs and they must have a good reason. Everyone I know that started with plasma TVs have sold them and moved on. A couple have gone DLP, but most have gone LCD.

Anyway, with the exception of the $25,000 BVML230, I've never seen anything, plasma, DLP or LCD, look as good as a properly calibrated professional-grade CRT.

Not taking sides here, just offering objective information from Consumer Reports:

Why buy a plasma TV?

To get more screen for your money. Inch for inch, plasma offers more bang for the buck than an LCD TV, so the same budget can buy you a bigger screen. Most of the 50-inch plasma sets we recommend cost $1,500 to $2,000. The 47-inch LCD Quick Picks cost $2,300 to $2,600, and the 52-inch sets cost $3,800 to $4,000. (Prices were current at press time but might drop this fall.)

To enjoy a movie-theater experience. A good plasma TV's deep black levels and high contrast can do justice to almost anything you watch, including movies and TV programs with dark scenes. The strong contrast and realistic, accurate colors can result in rich, natural-looking images, especially in dim lighting. Most LCD sets have trouble displaying the same strong, dark blacks as plasma sets. On certain LCD sets, uneven brightness from the backlight can create cloudy areas that can be distracting in dark scenes.

For a wide viewing angle. With a plasma TV, as with the familiar picture-tube set, the images onscreen look the same from almost any angle. That's a big plus if a TV will be watched by a number of people sitting around a room.

It's a different story with LCD TVs. (See Why buy an LCD TV?) Though some newer models have gotten better, most LCDs still look their best only from a limited sweet spot in front of the screen. As you move off to the side, the picture quality deteriorates, appearing increasingly washed out or dim. Vertical position also matters--say, if you're sitting on the floor or watching an LCD set that's mounted above a mantelpiece.

On some TV sets, those problems can be obvious, especially with indoor scenes and flesh tones. The degradation is less noticeable with bright images and vivid colors such as those you'd see in a football game. Because TVs in retail showrooms often display sporting events, you might not notice a problem with viewing angle when looking at a TV in a store. Picture settings also minimize the effect of viewing angle on picture quality. TVs are usually set to vivid or dynamic mode, which pumps up brightness and color to a level that looks great under fluorescent lights but unnatural in a typical home. Ask a salesperson to reset a TV to normal or standard mode and tune in nonsports programming to get a better idea of how a TV might look at home, especially from an angle.

Why buy an LCD TV?

You have a very bright room. LCDs are generally brighter than plasma TVs, and their screens are less reflective. That makes them better for daytime viewing in rooms with lots of windows or for night-time use in rooms with bright lighting. Some plasma TVs can look a bit dim in bright lighting when set to the normal or standard mode, which we generally recommend for home use. You can switch to the vivid mode or raise the brightness control to compensate, but the picture quality might suffer. Another issue with most plasmas is that the glass screens are subject to reflections and glare. If you have the lights on while watching dark scenes, you might see mirrorlike reflections on a plasma set.

For heavy use with video games or as a PC monitor. Both types of flat panels can do the job, but with an LCD, there's no chance static images will burn in. With a plasma TV, burn-in is a concern with video games, computer programs, and TV programming that has fixed images onscreen for a long time. That includes station logos, news tickers, even the bars alongside standard-def pictures. Many plasma sets have screen-saver features to minimize risk, but burn-in is still possible.

With either an LCD or plasma TV, consider a screen with 1080p resolution for use with a computer. The higher resolution will let you see more content onscreen with greater clarity and finer detail than on a 720p set. (You might have to connect your computer to the TV via an HDMI input to get 1080p resolution and to avoid having outer edges of the image cut off, otherwise known as overscan.)

For somewhat lower electric bills. LCDs tend to use less power than comparably sized plasma TVs. It doesn't appear that the differences would affect your electric bills by more than a few dollars a month in many cases, so that might not be a major factor in your decision. But there is obviously an environmental advantage to using a less power-hungry TV.

More form Consumer Reports:

The best sets are better than ever. The Panasonic TH-50PZ700U had the best picture of any flat-panel TV we’ve ever tested. One of the new breed of 1080p plasma sets now hitting stores, it combines “full HD”--1920x1080 native resolution, the highest currently available--with the characteristic strengths of plasma technology. Its ability to reproduce the finest detail, plus its rich, vibrant colors and deep blacks, lend an almost three-dimensional look to images.

LCD TVs outsold plasmas by about three to one last year, in part because they come in more, and smaller, sizes than plasmas, which start at 42 inches. But if you’re buying a bigger TV, don’t blindly follow the crowd down the LCD path. In some cases, a plasma display can give you a more satisfying TV-watching experience.

Both have their limitations and neither are worth the money IMO. I got much more for my money by building a 120 inch home theater with a projector.

Want the best of both worlds? Great blacks, uniform brightness, perfectly adjustable color, able to be viewed from any angle?

That would be the CRT.

Are LCD and Plasma progress? Or are we simply stuck with them as choices because of the widescreen format and the forced digital transition by the Congress enacted a few years ago and set to take place next Feb. designed to cater to the greed of the cable monopolies and the broadcast industries. They can charge more and get more channels into digital bandwidth than analog.

John

Anything that forces the end of NTSC is fine by me.

"unfortunately that feature did not help save HD DVD" Blink, nothing personal here, it was a reference to Toshiba promotions about HD DVD being a great upscaler to increase sales, which it did not appear to help in the end selling the players.

But its not a big leap in logic; if you don't have an HD TV, you don't need a new HD player unless you are buying a replacement for a DVD player and are thinking about HD TV. When you factor the minimum number of HD TVs, the HD media sales are doing great in the earlier periods of the product life cycle. Even HD DVD players are not totally bad considering the limited HD TVs and the slow decrease in DVDs sales before either HD DVD or BD hit the market.

I occasionally have access to a Sony BVML230, which is their new master series 23" LCD monitor, and a 70" SXRD rear-projector.

Yes... I on occasion have access to that sort of stuff too... I just go to my local best buy.

In other words John, you're talking off the top of your head and you have no real experience with the equipment required to enjoy and experience REAL hi def complete with 5.1 / 7.1 lossless audio

Ooookay... moving on...

Both have their limitations and neither are worth the money IMO. I got much more for my money by building a 120 inch home theater with a projector.

Usually I agree with you John, and I certainly do with the CRT. It seems that we spend most of our time TRYING to get this new technology comparable to that of a CRT. But I'm not sure I agree with the projector idea. They are nice and while it is true that you can get a fair screen size for a relatively cheap price, they are not practical.... you pretty much have to devote a room to them.... and they do introduce a certain error that LCD/Plasma TV's don't have to worry about since each pixel is viewed directly.

At some point I will no doubt get a projector, but not until the kids are a little older and I can reclaim parts of my house that have been temporarily lost to kids/dogs/toys....etc

Jay Gladwell....

Good explanation of LCD/Plasma...... A thank you is in order for your sizable description.

"with the exception of the $25,000 BVML230" yes, its worth its money, really! ;-) But the new Oled puts CRTs to shame, I saw a "rare" 61" OLED display for DOD being demonstrate in desert daylight, totally impressive, when commercial 40+" arrives in the near future, it will conquer the high-end business and home theater market. Once the manufacturing issues are conquered, like plasma when thru, this will become the ultimate editors display.

Gee, I was unaware that Best Buy sells $25,000 Sony professional HD monitors.

In other words John, you're talking off the top of your head and you have no real experience"

You're right, I guess my 22 years of experience with the broadcast and production side of HD television couldn't possibly qualify me to talk about it.

Gee, I was unaware that Best Buy sells $25,000 Sony professional HD monitors.

You're missing the point... BestBuy having $25000 monitors is about as silly as your "$25000" statement to begin with.

And I didn't ask you about your "experience" ... I asked what TV you're using. So if we wade through all the crap in your previous posts... anything less than 42" isn't worth talking about for viewing Hi def (not my words... it's written all over the internet.... 42" or better), so we're left with a 42" LCD, and a rear projector that bounces images off a mirror in the back.

I repeat my words...
In other words John, you're talking off the top of your head and you have no real experience with the equipment required to enjoy and experience REAL hi def complete with 5.1 / 7.1 lossless audio