HD-DVD, here's what's coming.

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

<Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111371616.455210.247530@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> The only vendor to provide an MSRP (yet) is Toshiba. At CES 2005
> Toshiba demonstrated a HD-DVD recorder and player. The player is set to
> have HDMI and component outputs along with optical audio out. It will
> have an MSRP of $1000 and will be marketed as high end product (you
> probably won't find HD-DVD players at Walmart for a few years to come).
>
> If you're cruious what Toshiba's HD-DVD player will look like you can
> get a glimpse here:
> http://www.cnet.com/4520-10602_1-5618766-1.html

That link says that this is a PLAY only unit at $1,000. OVERPRICED.

> As already posted to this NG, 89 HD-DVD launch titles will be available
> by fourth quarter of 2005. Universal, Paramont and WB have all provided
> a list of launch titles, this list can be found here:
> http://dvd.ign.com/articles/577/577955p2.html
>
> Movies on HD-DVD will carry an MSRP of $30.
>
> Given this information what do you think of HD-DVD? Although I am
> unaware of any MSRP announcements, Blue-Ray is likely to be priced
> competitive. Do you think consumers will spend $1000 on an HD-DVD
> player and $30 on movies in HD-DVD format?

No. Why should HD format movies cost one cent more than SD? Is it really
costing them more to make the discs (and if so, how much?)

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

curmudgeon wrote:
> 1. Because HD transfer masters cost considerably more to make than an SD
> master.

I doubt that any studio has done an SD master in years.

> 2. What it costs to make has nothing to do with what is charged! Any
> price is possible in a society where people actually pay for water in a
> bottle.

"What the market will bear" is exactly what drives prices on luxury items.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?

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

curmudgeon wrote:
> 1. Because HD transfer masters cost considerably more to make than
an SD
> master.
>
> 2. What it costs to make has nothing to do with what is charged!
Any
> price is possible in a society where people actually pay for water in
a
> bottle.

"Any" price is wrong. If that were the case, everything would cost an
infinity number of dollars.

Obviously supply and demand is at work. Like every technology, it's
high at first to offset R&D, and once become more mainstream, the price
will drop.

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

This is true, when DVD players first hit the market they were priced
about the same. When I first started looking at DVD players I remember
it being hard to find a player under $400, today a progressive scan DVD
player with plenty of options can be had for about $100.

Another thing to note, we don't have BlueRay MSRP information yet, but
we do know that Sony Computer Entertainment plans to release their
PlayStation 3console with a BlueRay player built-in and Sony has said
that they expect the PlayStation 3 will have a sub $400 price point.
PS3 is on path for a 2006 Holiday season release in the US.

With this kind of information available, I think it's going to be very
hard to get early adopters on board for either of these formats.

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

Another thing will stop people buy them as well. If your TV don't have
HDMI conectors you wont be able to use the HD players


On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 10:17:04 -0800, Mark Crispin
<MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:

>On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Steven de Mena wrote:
>> No. Why should HD format movies cost one cent more than SD? Is it really
>> costing them more to make the discs (and if so, how much?)
>
>The better question is, "why shouldn't HD format movies cost more than
>SD?".
>
>The only influence that production cost has on market price is to set the
>floor (and even that is cracked when a loss-leader is needed).
>Competition sets the ceiling; and for copyrighted material the impact of
>competition is greatly ameliorated.
>
>-- Mark --
>
>http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
>Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
>Si vis pacem, para bellum.

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

Digital Sheep wrote:
> Another thing will stop people buy them as well. If your TV don't have
> HDMI conectors you wont be able to use the HD players

Yeah, and how am I going to explain that to the wife....I can hear it now...

Wife: "you said it would last for years, now you want a &*%*$%# new one
!!!"

Response: "But honey, anything more than 1 year is considered years. Just
think, we actually got 3.5 out of it!!!"

Wife: "Do you recall that part about until death do us part....."


>
>
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 10:17:04 -0800, Mark Crispin
> <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Steven de Mena wrote:
>>> No. Why should HD format movies cost one cent more than SD? Is it
>>> really costing them more to make the discs (and if so, how much?)
>>
>> The better question is, "why shouldn't HD format movies cost more
>> than SD?".
>>
>> The only influence that production cost has on market price is to
>> set the floor (and even that is cracked when a loss-leader is
>> needed). Competition sets the ceiling; and for copyrighted material
>> the impact of competition is greatly ameliorated.
>>
>> -- Mark --
>>
>> http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
>> Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public
>> debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum.

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

Sure am glad my bride loves the HT!
Clay
"L Alpert" <alpertl@xxgmail.com> wrote in message
news:1YSdnUZZw9tqD6LfRVn-pw@comcast.com...
> Digital Sheep wrote:
> > Another thing will stop people buy them as well. If your TV don't
have
> > HDMI conectors you wont be able to use the HD players
>
> Yeah, and how am I going to explain that to the wife....I can hear
it now...
>
> Wife: "you said it would last for years, now you want a &*%*$%# new
one
> !!!"
>
> Response: "But honey, anything more than 1 year is considered years.
Just
> think, we actually got 3.5 out of it!!!"
>
> Wife: "Do you recall that part about until death do us part....."
>
>
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 10:17:04 -0800, Mark Crispin
> > <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Steven de Mena wrote:
> >>> No. Why should HD format movies cost one cent more than SD? Is
it
> >>> really costing them more to make the discs (and if so, how
much?)
> >>
> >> The better question is, "why shouldn't HD format movies cost more
> >> than SD?".
> >>
> >> The only influence that production cost has on market price is to
> >> set the floor (and even that is cracked when a loss-leader is
> >> needed). Competition sets the ceiling; and for copyrighted
material
> >> the impact of competition is greatly ameliorated.
> >>
> >> -- Mark --
> >>
> >> http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
> >> Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public
> >> debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum.
>
>

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

Alex Perez wrote:
> L Alpert wrote:
>> curmudgeon wrote:
>>
>>> 1. Because HD transfer masters cost considerably more to make than
>>> an SD master.
>>
>>
>> Even if the master costs 250K more, how much would that be per unit
>> sold?
> Yes, well, curmudgeon has no idea what they are talking about. HD
> transfers do not cost ANY more. Even my poor film-student friend, when
> he had his 35mm movie transferred at PhotoChem in Hollywood, they
> transfer it directly to HDCAM and then have to go through an EXTRA
> step of downsampling it to DVCAM so he can edit it since he can't
> afford an HDCAM deck yet. Having it transferred directly to
> standard-definition isn't even an option. It doesn't make archival or
> economic sense, for newly-produced stuff.
>
>>
>>> 2. What it costs to make has nothing to do with what is charged!
>>> Any price is possible in a society where people actually pay for
>>> water in a bottle.
>>
>>
>> It's what the market will bear. DVD's cost more than VHS even
>> though you know VHS manufacture and duplication costs more.....
>
> Yes, although there's SOMETHING to be said for the production work
> that goes into lots of extras and such (but still, I agree they're
> artificially inflated in price)...we are starting to see the advent of
> old movies transferred to DVD appearing in places like wal-mart for
> $0.50 and $1.00, however.

The transfer to digital without cleaning it up can make for some pretty poor
quality. But hey, for a buck, I can reminisce of watching only 3 stations
OTA analog in B&W with rabbit ears and I was the remote control (and that
blasted matchbook in the fine tuning always seem to need an adjustment just
when Lassie got the bad guy).....

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

poldy wrote:
> In article <kg1v31pm1cruc9papo3u58tceq6udamt2c@4ax.com>,
> Digital Sheep <1@2> wrote:
>
>>
>> Another thing will stop people buy them as well. If your TV don't
>> have HDMI conectors you wont be able to use the HD players
>
> Well both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are expected to support 1080p.
>
> So just as DVD encouraged people to get HDTV displays and 5.1 systems,
> these new formats may encourage people to get new HDTV displays which
> support 1080p and maybe new sound systems.
>
> If you don't even have a DVI port, then you bought your HDTV a long
> time ago and it may be time for an upgrade anyways.

TV with DVI is fairly new. When I got my Mitsubishi in Jan of 2002, they
were not in use. 3 years is not a long time for a $2K-$3K TV.

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

poldy wrote:
> In article <7_F0e.12145$m31.125505@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> Alex Perez <aperez@gmailDAWT.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Just because my TV is old, doesn't mean it is still
>>not a very nice device with many years left.
>
>
> Not if you want to watch content which requires DVI.

That's idiotic. There's no *content* which *REQUIRES* DVI. Only if you
own hardware which can /only/ output DVI (and no other format) is this
fantasy-problem of yours an issue.

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

"poldy" <poldy@kfu.com> wrote in message
newsoldy-DE46A7.17481528032005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <Vnq1e.12373$m31.126899@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> Alex Perez <aperez@gmailDAWT.com> wrote:
>
> > poldy wrote:
> > > In article <7_F0e.12145$m31.125505@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> > > Alex Perez <aperez@gmailDAWT.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>Just because my TV is old, doesn't mean it is still
> > >>not a very nice device with many years left.
> > >
> > >
> > > Not if you want to watch content which requires DVI.
> >
> > That's idiotic. There's no *content* which *REQUIRES* DVI. Only if you
> > own hardware which can /only/ output DVI (and no other format) is this
> > fantasy-problem of yours an issue.
>
> The content whose owners demand DVI connections on any equipment which
> would play back said content.
>
> Got that jackass?

Who is demanding DVI connections for their content? And why? I think you
are confused. Do you mean HDCP?

Leonard

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

"L Alpert" <alpertl@xxgmail.com> wrote in message
news:1YSdnUZZw9tqD6LfRVn-pw@comcast.com...
> Digital Sheep wrote:
>> Another thing will stop people buy them as well. If your TV don't have
>> HDMI conectors you wont be able to use the HD players
>
> Yeah, and how am I going to explain that to the wife....I can hear it
> now...
>
> Wife: "you said it would last for years, now you want a &*%*$%# new one
> !!!"
>
> Response: "But honey, anything more than 1 year is considered years. Just
> think, we actually got 3.5 out of it!!!"
>
> Wife: "Do you recall that part about until death do us part....."
>

You've been to my house this weekend!

Nate

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

In article <JC22e.80218$SF.25279@lakeread08>,
"Leonard Caillouet" <no@no.com> wrote:

> Who is demanding DVI connections for their content? And why? I think you
> are confused. Do you mean HDCP?

DVI in the context of HDTV implies HDCP.

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

stuckinthemud wrote:
> "poldy" <poldy@kfu.com> wrote in message
> newsoldy-D7E07A.20065626032005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>> In article <7_F0e.12145$m31.125505@typhoon.sonic.net>,
>> Alex Perez <aperez@gmailDAWT.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Just because my TV is old, doesn't mean it is still
>>> not a very nice device with many years left.
>>
>> Not if you want to watch content which requires DVI.
>>
>
> He can't buy a DVI to Componant cable for 27 bucks?
>
> Nate

Need a digital to analog conversion for that.

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

curmudgeon (curmudgeon@buzzoff.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> 1. Because HD transfer masters cost considerably more to make than an SD
> master.

That's irrelevant. Every new transfer intended for DVD use is already done
in HD and then downconverted. Many *old* (10-15 years) transfers (for
laserdisc) were done in HD as well.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Pickles/Adoration.gif