A FUD article from MSNBC? Hardly an objective source.

Some of the article is opinion and some of it is fact... but just because you disagree with does not make it..... "FUD". It merely makes it a difference of opinion.

And I SINCERELY DOUBT the PS3 will drop to $199. They had to re-manufacture it just to get it to the price it is now.

Personally speaking, I agree with Enderle in one area:

"Cable and satellite providers continue to offer more HD movies on demand, while other companies are moving swiftly to get in on the action."

It's becoming a big deal.... cable companies are now scheming to offer the NEW release dvd's on VOD which has not been done before, and Netflix has started canvasing the consumer on on-line downloads.

I don't necessarily think this will KILL disc media... but it will take a bite out of it. I think today it's all about choices.... there are a lot of delivery methods out there now and I think they will all play a role.

As far as machine prices are concerned... I think Enderle is also correct.... Average Joe is not going to bite at these prices... and it's not just the machines either... the price of the software is also too high.

When MS provides BD-quality audio and video able to stream to a console unit, then we'll talk.

if you have broadband 'net, it can be done. Since everything is digital, all it requires is the decoder on the receiving end & the encoder on the sending end.

Picture this: you have a SDTV so you're send a SD version streaming. No need to waste bandwidth on the HD version. And if you have a 720p set, no need to waste the bandwidth on the 1080 version. You could price differently each version: $1 for SD, $1.5 for 720 & $2 for 1080 (example prices)

The only issues I have is that most articles try to say that anything but 1080p is bad. If you have a 32" TV, 720 is MORE then enough. As long as you don't see the pixel's, who cares?

Micro Soft / National Broadcasting Company
They would never supply FUD, would they?

"Cable and satellite providers continue to offer more HD movies on demand, while other companies are moving swiftly to get in on the action."

The only problem with HD movies on cable and satellite is that they look like crap compared to Blu-Ray or HD-DVD optical discs. Neither cable nor satellite can deliver a 35Mbit stream and it's unlikely that they will anytime soon.

John, I am waiting for FIOS which is moving to my area and will replace my satellite TV and Internet connections. It offers better bandwidth than either. So it may finally come, just not real soon.

Gary

The only problem with HD movies on cable and satellite is that they look like crap compared to Blu-Ray or HD-DVD optical discs. Neither cable nor satellite can deliver a 35Mbit stream and it's unlikely that they will anytime soon.

I agree completely. But then I am not sure at what point picture quality becomes a non issue for average Joe. According to the numbers, dvd is working just fine for the vast majority of the population. Cable HD can at least give SD dvd a run for its money.

Can't exactly remember the number of HDTV's in households right now, but it was something around 30% in the US at the moment. That means that 70% of the population still has some sort of CRT or similar as a main viewer. Don't quote these numbers as exact, but the point is that the vast majority of the population is perfectly happy with their existing quality and are in no rush to make things better.

I'm sort of taking the long way to explain my perspective, but I guess my big point is that it is only nuts like us that worry about the quality to the extent that BD can give us.... the rest.... well.... it's just not worth it to them.

"But then I am not sure at what point picture quality becomes a non issue for average Joe."

Sure, there are still people listening to cassettes and watching VHS, they're only happy with what they have because they haven't seen or heard any better. The "average Joe" used to be perfectly happy with vinyl and cassettes UNTIL he heard a CD. He was perfectly happy with VHS until they saw a DVD. The CD and DVD have raised the collective quality consciousness of pretty much everybody. Once people are exposed to and educated about quality, there is no going back. Everybody can hear, but one learns to listen. Everybody can see, but one learns to watch. "Nuts like us" became "nuts like us" because someone educated us to be able to tell the difference.

Everyone that has seen real HD here at my place has been stunned and not ONE of them has said "That's nice, but DVD is good enough for me" instead they have all said, "how do I get this set up at my house." I tell them, "1080p LCD TV, PS3 and a decent surround sound system. $1,500 to 2,000 will easily get you there."

Assuming that your 30% figure about HDTV households is correct (it's probably a little higher after Christmas), nevertheless, the figure was 0% four or five years ago.

By the way, the people that say that upscaled DVD is just as good as HD, are probably sitting too far away from their HDTV and, sure, they will look the same. I sit six feet from my HDTV and the difference is night and day. HDTV is meant to be watched closely so you can see every hair on their head or watch the peanut vendor on the other side of the field on a wide shot during a sporting event. SD had to be watched from a distance because, if you got close, you would realize just how awful it looked.

John

I may be interested in hi def solely for movies that I'd like to see with it, like star wars or fx-heavy type movies, or some of the ones with great visuals ... but for 99% of the movies and tv show DVDs (wild west, jeannie, charmed, star trek, buffy, las vegas, whatever), there IS no HD, and no reason to upgrade imho...

I do agree that hi def is neat, but I can't personally see *that* much of a difference myself, and most of my content I watch was originally filmed in SD anyways... especially all my classic DVDs and TV shows.

So I have zero interest in hd-dvd/blu-ray, as SD is plenty good enough for me. Plus, even if there WAS hd DVDs available for all my hundreds of movies, I wouldn't want to pay a fortune, many thousands in dollars, to upgrade them. The perceived value isn't there.

As someone said in another thread, "it's all about the STORY" ... as long as the quality is what I'm used to, blu-ray/hd-dvd has no appeal to me whatsoever. And I don't have an ipod, I don't use a cell phone, and I am (reluctantly) using winXP, not vista, and won't, for years....

Maybe I'm just a millionaire dinosaur, but that's just me... I think the hi def stuff is a minor fringe fad that a minority percentage of customers will embrace, it's just not that compelling. If there were 3d implemented well, though - that would be of interest, it's a big enough leap...

it's like movie theatres, with home movie theatres (I use a projector/screen), there's no reason to go to the movies... I don't see any major compelling benefit to try and spend a fortune to upgrade my content collection just to get a bit sharper picture, it's no big whoop to me... :p

-k

kencalhoun:
I couldn't disagree with you more on the difference between HD/SD. The difference is stunning in resolution and sharpness and colors. I think you better take a trip to the eye doctor for a visual checkup.In my OTA steup I can see all the zits, skin colorations, facial hair, moles, dandruff on the clothing, out of place hairs, excessive makeup, old skin cleavage colorations, sweat beads, embarrassed facial tones, striped shirts, smudged glass desk panels, and old moldy teeth.
JJK

"Maybe I'm just a millionaire dinosaur", its apparent that you did not open your e-mail 430 millions ago..........you're extinct, so goto the nearest landfill or tarpit for processing and bring your working papers, their way out of date! ;-)

kencalhoun said: but for 99% of the movies and tv show DVDs (wild west, jeannie, charmed, star trek, buffy, las vegas, whatever), there IS no HD, and no reason to upgrade imho...

All of the shows you listed were shot at *above* high def, since they were shot on film. It's only shows that were shot on NTSC video that wouldn't show much improvement on HD. (They could show a *little* improvement though because the technology today gives you a better copy of the master.)

However, you also said "and no reason to upgrade imho" and there's nothing I can say about that--- you are certainly entitled to your opinion and if you don't feel it's worth upgrading that's fine. I only replied to your post to clarify the misconception that those old shows weren't HD-ready in terms of resolution.

Fred

Streaming will be the medium especially when the price of hard media is so high. There will always be those of us that want the pristine quality stuff but largely the public is not willing to pay. MP3s are no where near CD quality (and forget high res SACD quality) and yet convenience and price drive that market. Yes cable and satellite over compress their signals but the vast majority of the public doesn't care. The medium is not going to matter and it shouldn't.

The only problem with HD movies on cable and satellite is that they look like crap compared to Blu-Ray or HD-DVD optical discs. Neither cable nor satellite can deliver a 35Mbit stream and it's unlikely that they will anytime soon.

I agree completely. But then I am not sure at what point picture quality becomes a non issue for average Joe. According to the numbers, dvd is working just fine for the vast majority of the population. Cable HD can at least give SD dvd a run for its money.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While I agree that HD OD versions of HD feature movies look better than sat or cable usually, it's not much difference. Only on the 50" plus screens is it visible. On my 51" screen I see problems much more clearly than the 42" screen. I doubt people with 37" or smaller "HD" screens ever see any video issues.

Also, the BD & HD-DVD discs never use the full bandwidth or best resolution codecs. Last night I watched a little of "Blades of Glory". It was an AVCMP4 @ 20Mbs. It was a crap movie, but the video quality was excellent. My point being, smaller & slower streams are really producing excellent video nowdays.

I would bet that the HD bandwidth used for sat & cable HD presentations would fit a feature HD film on a DL DVD. That is both impressive and disheartening. I think the bandwidth and storage area available on BD discs is far beyond what is required nowdays for a HD feature film as the compression codecs have advanced beyond what was available when BD & HD-DVD were designed..

Local stations in my area (PBS OTA) download their programs at 49 meg bitrate. The local live OTA news programs are absolutely pristeen.
The networks are all going to stretchovision meaning you are loosing half the picture and gaining a ton of grain because of zooming. The network live stuff OTA (super bowl, local morning shows) is still very good. Most of the other comedy/crime programs looked like they were filmed in super 8. My experience at the hospital/car repair waiting rooms have the picture stretched even on 4 x 3 making short fat people. I can't tell you how much this iritates me.
JJK

Better still............Go for a walk in the park.............Go for a swim. Sitting down at my editor for two hours per day is quite sufficient for me. I prefer to FEEL the beautiful world surrounding me, for the remainder of my waking hours.

Being as the target distribution rate for HD in MPEG-4/AVC is 8 mbps, a movie would fit nicely onto a DVD DL.