Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

HD DVD

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
December 4, 2004 6:00:39 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

One of the main selling points of ED Plasmas is that most of them display
DVD and SD content as good or better than HD plasmas at a cheaper price. A
plasma is expensive enough to be a long term investment. If you were to buy
a plasma today, would the impending (i.e. 1 year away) introduction of HD
DVD's negatively influence your purchasing decision of an ED plasma?

Also, any suggestions for plasma displays under $3K?

TIA

JC
NYC

More about : dvd

Anonymous
December 4, 2004 6:00:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"JC" <joeblow@aol.com> wrote in message news:<rL9sd.60167$Vk6.19850@twister.nyc.rr.com>...

> One of the main selling points of ED Plasmas is that most of them display
> DVD and SD content as good or better than HD plasmas at a cheaper price. A
> plasma is expensive enough to be a long term investment. If you were to buy
> a plasma today, would the impending (i.e. 1 year away) introduction of HD
> DVD's negatively influence your purchasing decision of an ED plasma?
>
> Also, any suggestions for plasma displays under $3K?

My take is that anyone who buys a non-HD television of any kind
nowadays had better be paying as little as possible, because you're
going to want HD in a few years.

But given the short lifespans that plasma sets are said to have, maybe
that's not a problem... in which case I can only ask why someone
would pay so much for a TV that won't last.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 7:44:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Panasonic 42PD25/U

Best under $3K plasma, if you can find it in stock.


"JC" <joeblow@aol.com> wrote in message
news:rL9sd.60167$Vk6.19850@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> One of the main selling points of ED Plasmas is that most of them display
> DVD and SD content as good or better than HD plasmas at a cheaper price. A
> plasma is expensive enough to be a long term investment. If you were to
buy
> a plasma today, would the impending (i.e. 1 year away) introduction of HD
> DVD's negatively influence your purchasing decision of an ED plasma?
>
> Also, any suggestions for plasma displays under $3K?
>
> TIA
>
> JC
> NYC
>
>
Related resources
December 4, 2004 9:29:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

The whole short lifespan on Plasma is false...you can expect 13 to 15 years
for the average user....your not running a Kiosk in the airport 24-7.


Paul Kienitz" <paul-NOZPAM@paulkienitz.net> wrote in message
news:e5747637.0412032236.5b72df24@posting.google.com...
> "JC" <joeblow@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:<rL9sd.60167$Vk6.19850@twister.nyc.rr.com>...
>
>> One of the main selling points of ED Plasmas is that most of them display
>> DVD and SD content as good or better than HD plasmas at a cheaper price.
>> A
>> plasma is expensive enough to be a long term investment. If you were to
>> buy
>> a plasma today, would the impending (i.e. 1 year away) introduction of HD
>> DVD's negatively influence your purchasing decision of an ED plasma?
>>
>> Also, any suggestions for plasma displays under $3K?
>
> My take is that anyone who buys a non-HD television of any kind
> nowadays had better be paying as little as possible, because you're
> going to want HD in a few years.
>
> But given the short lifespans that plasma sets are said to have, maybe
> that's not a problem... in which case I can only ask why someone
> would pay so much for a TV that won't last.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 1:29:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Paul Kienitz wrote:
> My take is that anyone who buys a non-HD television of any kind
> nowadays had better be paying as little as possible, because you're
> going to want HD in a few years.
>
> But given the short lifespans that plasma sets are said to have, maybe
> that's not a problem... in which case I can only ask why someone
> would pay so much for a TV that won't last.

Umm, 60,000 hours to half-brightness for the Panasonic plasmas is
short? I think Samsung is claiming 50,000 hours. The inherent lifespan
of the screen display of plasmas or direct view LCDs (also normally
rated at 60,000 hours for the backlight lamps) is not an issue when
determining what to buy.

As for ED vs HD plasma, yes, if you think you want to get a Blue-Ray
(BD) or HD-DVD player in the next year or two, then the ED is a
drawback. But the better ED plasmas will present a very good picture for
DVDs, SD, and even HD broadcasts. The biggest problem with the current
HD plasmas, besides the stiff price increase over the EDs, is that at
the 42" size, the HDs either have 1024x768 or 1024x1204 (Alis) pixels.
So you are getting "true" HD in terms of at least 1280 pixels
horizontally. With any luck, we will see higher resolution 42" HD
plasmas in the next several years. But how long will it take for BD or
HD-DVD prices to fall and for the format war to settle out?

That is why I keep going back and forth in trying to decide between
getting a Panasonic consumer 37" ED plasma for the low $2K range versus
getting their newer 7UY commercial 42" HD commercial model for around
$4K by the time you add in shipping, DVI blade & external ATSC. One
approach is to get the current 37" ED consumer model, use that as the
main TV for 2 years, then sell it or use it as a 2nd TV, and then
upgrade to a by then cheaper true HD plasma or LCD TV with newer
technology. Tough call. I hope this helps more than it confuses.

If you really want to get into reading about plasmas, www.avsforum.com
plasma/LCD forum is hard to beat.

Alan Figgatt
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 10:13:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Even if HD-DVD and Blu-ray players are introduced next year the prices will
be very high and there won't be all that much content. With that in mind
there won't be all that much incentive to jump in from the start unless you
have a lot of discretionary income.

Another factor to consider is that there isn't really all that much HD
content on tv right now. Sure it has improved greatly over a few years ago,
but it has a LONG way to go.

Based on those two factors I'd say to go for the cheaper plasma today. Down
the road a little ways you can buy a much better plasma. By that time
you'll be able to get an HD plasma for much cheaper than they go for today,
the prices on HD-DVD or Blu-ray players will have come down, and there will
be a lot more HD content to choose from.

If you dump out $8k now you'll have a hard time buying a new tv in a few
years. If you spend only $2k then you might feel a little better about it.

I just did a similar thing myself. Rather than buy a brand new 56" DLP tv
for $4k I bought a used, 1-year old DLP for $1.7k. Great picture and I
saved a bundle!

Brad




"JC" <joeblow@aol.com> wrote in message
news:rL9sd.60167$Vk6.19850@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> One of the main selling points of ED Plasmas is that most of them display
> DVD and SD content as good or better than HD plasmas at a cheaper price. A
> plasma is expensive enough to be a long term investment. If you were to
> buy a plasma today, would the impending (i.e. 1 year away) introduction of
> HD DVD's negatively influence your purchasing decision of an ED plasma?
>
> Also, any suggestions for plasma displays under $3K?
>
> TIA
>
> JC
> NYC
>
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 6:32:08 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Speaking of the upcoming format war between HDDBD and Blu-ray... it
won't be a very bloody war, because there's no reason you can't make
players that support both. Once you have a laser capable of reading
both Blu-ray and DVD classic discs, reading HDDVD as well is just a
matter of adding a little more firmware.
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 2:02:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Paul Kienitz wrote:
> Speaking of the upcoming format war between HDDBD and Blu-ray... it
> won't be a very bloody war, because there's no reason you can't make
> players that support both. Once you have a laser capable of reading
> both Blu-ray and DVD classic discs, reading HDDVD as well is just a
> matter of adding a little more firmware.

Somewhat true for a Blue-Ray player with backward compatibility
because Blue-Ray requires a different lens and is a bigger jump in the
hardware than HD-DVD. But if you are a big retail chain - do you want to
take up valuable shelf space stocking two types of HD disks- BD and
HD-DVD? In the early going, I expect movie titles will be in one format
or the other, so there won't overlap in that aspect for the retail store.

From the viewpoint of the retail chain, you finally killed off VHS
titles, and you have all the video titles in DVD. Ok, so you got wide
screen vs full screen, but you can live with that. The music section is
mostly CDs, except for a tiny selection of SA-CD and DVD-A which are
probably not selling much.

Now HD disks are coming out in 2 different formats and now you have to
find shelf space for both, keep them separate, and "train" the staff to
know the difference between the two types. And until more people have
HDTV sets, these disks are are not going to sell in big numbers. I am
surprised that the big retailer such as Best Buy, Walmart, or even
Amazon have not weighed in on this format war, AFAIK. Best Buy could
stand up and say we are going to stock only one format or the other, so
which of the two consortiums will give us the best price? I doubt if the
Bush justice department would interfere.

Alan Figgatt
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 2:48:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

True but I doubt if movie DVDs will support both. It looks like
sony may lose again with 4 studios announced that they plan to
support HD-DVD due its cheaper cost to implement.

Cygnus
The Bringer of Balance


paul-NOZPAM@paulkienitz.net (Paul Kienitz) wrote in message news:<e5747637.0412050332.2d16c853@posting.google.com>...
> Speaking of the upcoming format war between HDDBD and Blu-ray... it
> won't be a very bloody war, because there's no reason you can't make
> players that support both. Once you have a laser capable of reading
> both Blu-ray and DVD classic discs, reading HDDVD as well is just a
> matter of adding a little more firmware.
December 6, 2004 4:05:44 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <c7d6db20.0412051148.e178ca3@posting.google.com>,
_cygnusx-1_@excite.com (CygnusX-1) wrote:

>
> True but I doubt if movie DVDs will support both. It looks like
> sony may lose again with 4 studios announced that they plan to
> support HD-DVD due its cheaper cost to implement.

Paramount and Universal were probably bought off. Time Warner has a
vested interest in HD-DVD because they have patent rights.

There may be more HD-DVD titles Xmas 2005. But in the first two years
of both formats, there will be far more HW choices for Blu-Ray.

There will be more Blu-Ray drives for PCs and PS3 may also help flood
the market with low-cost players capable of playing back Blu-Ray.

Then we'll see what the studios do.
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 6:01:30 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Mark" <mschal@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:MZidnX35w_weAizcRVn-pQ@adelphia.com...
> The whole short lifespan on Plasma is false...you can expect 13 to 15
> years for the average user....your not running a Kiosk in the airport
> 24-7.

I have a friend from work whose father bought a plasma. I told her before he
bought it to pay attention to burn in, adjust it to lower brightness and
contrast than default, etc. (or even not buy a plasma at all), but he
appearantly didn't do so, because she said it had obvious burn in after only
a couple of months, but they didn't want to hassle with trying to return or
replace it, so they're "just living with it". I bet a lot of people are in
the same situation.
December 9, 2004 4:37:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Brad Griffis" <bradgriffis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:R%nsd.38796$Qv5.6238@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> Even if HD-DVD and Blu-ray players are introduced next year the prices
> will be very high and there won't be all that much content. With that in
> mind there won't be all that much incentive to jump in from the start
> unless you have a lot of discretionary income.
>
> Another factor to consider is that there isn't really all that much HD
> content on tv right now. Sure it has improved greatly over a few years
> ago, but it has a LONG way to go.
>
> Based on those two factors I'd say to go for the cheaper plasma today.
> Down the road a little ways you can buy a much better plasma. By that
> time you'll be able to get an HD plasma for much cheaper than they go for
> today, the prices on HD-DVD or Blu-ray players will have come down, and
> there will be a lot more HD content to choose from.
>
> If you dump out $8k now you'll have a hard time buying a new tv in a few
> years. If you spend only $2k then you might feel a little better about
> it.
>
> I just did a similar thing myself. Rather than buy a brand new 56" DLP tv
> for $4k I bought a used, 1-year old DLP for $1.7k. Great picture and I
> saved a bundle!
>
> Brad
>

Thanks for the comments. Very helpful.

JC
NYC
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 6:25:13 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

For a while at least, we'll have some studios releasing films in only
one format and others using only the other format. Right? Which means
consumers will demand support for both from both rental stores and
player hardware. It'll end once some studios give up attachment to
just one format and support the other. For technical reasons obviously
I hope Blu-ray wins.
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 12:33:24 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

<paul-NOZPAM@paulkienitz.net> wrote in message
news:1102591513.268349.74000@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> For a while at least, we'll have some studios releasing films in only
> one format and others using only the other format. Right? Which means
> consumers will demand support for both from both rental stores and
> player hardware. It'll end once some studios give up attachment to
> just one format and support the other. For technical reasons obviously
> I hope Blu-ray wins.

I agree that probably at first, movies will be in one format or the other.
The main question is whether players will be available from the beginning
that can play back both formats, and at reasonable cost (not too much more
expensive than players supporting only one format). If that's the case, then
I expect most people would end up buying a "combo" player, and the existence
of two formats would not be a problem. This is the ideal situation: early
use of HD-DVD could result in a larger number of movies available quickly at
reasonable cost, while allowing transition to the higher-capacity Blu-Ray as
time goes by.

But it's just as likely that, at least at first, most players would support
only one or the other format. Which would cause problems, and probably delay
mass adoption of either format.
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 9:35:31 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Matthew Vaughan wrote:

....
> I expect most people would end up buying a "combo" player, and the
> existence of two formats would not be a problem. This is the ideal
> situation: early use of HD-DVD could result in a larger number of
> movies available quickly at reasonable cost, while allowing
> transition to the higher-capacity Blu-Ray as time goes by.
>
> But it's just as likely that, at least at first, most players would
> support only one or the other format. Which would cause problems, and
> probably delay mass adoption of either format.

There will certainly be one-format players at first. Especially, there
will be a lot more HDDVD-only players than there will be Blu-ray-only
players, because with proper firmware the Blu-ray laser can read any
lesser format. The key question for the Blu-ray camp is whether they
can get enough titles out that consumers won't settle for a HDDVD-only
player. Then they can win the player-adoption war even if behind in
rentals.

Good news: Disney just joined the Blu-ray camp. That makes the studio
forces on each side much more even. Columbia, MGM, and Disney vs.
Warner, Paramount, Universal, and New Line. That leaves Fox as the
only large undecided player? This leaves perhaps a slight edge for
Blu-ray because the HDDVD studios are all free to swing both ways,
while Columbia and MGM are probably not going to budge unless Blu-ray
is utterly crushed.
Anonymous
December 10, 2004 10:14:24 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Matthew Vaughan wrote:

....
> I expect most people would end up buying a "combo" player, and the
> existence of two formats would not be a problem. This is the ideal
> situation: early use of HD-DVD could result in a larger number of
> movies available quickly at reasonable cost, while allowing
> transition to the higher-capacity Blu-Ray as time goes by.
>
> But it's just as likely that, at least at first, most players would
> support only one or the other format. Which would cause problems, and
> probably delay mass adoption of either format.

There will certainly be one-format players at first. Especially, there
will be a lot more HDDVD-only players than there will be Blu-ray-only
players, because with proper firmware the Blu-ray laser can read any
lesser format. The key question for the Blu-ray camp is whether they
can get enough titles out that consumers won't settle for a HDDVD-only
player. Then they can win the player-adoption war even if behind in
rentals.

Good news: Disney just joined the Blu-ray camp. That makes the studio
forces on each side much more even. Columbia, MGM, and Disney vs.
Warner, Paramount, Universal, and New Line. That leaves Fox as the
only large undecided player? This leaves perhaps a slight edge for
Blu-ray because the HDDVD studios are all free to swing both ways,
while Columbia and MGM are probably not going to budge unless Blu-ray
is utterly crushed.
December 11, 2004 5:32:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <E3eud.10614$_3.122951@typhoon.sonic.net>,
"Matthew Vaughan" <matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:

> This is the ideal situation: early
> use of HD-DVD could result in a larger number of movies available quickly at
> reasonable cost, while allowing transition to the higher-capacity Blu-Ray as
> time goes by.

Or, we could organize a boycott and try to kill off HD-DVD, the way we
killed off Divx.
!