TVSquad

I'm probably in a slim majority here, being a younger guy, my DVD "collection" consists of roughly 9 movies and random seasons of Futurama and That 70's Show. Because of this, I'm in better place (for lack of a better term) to switch over to high definition. To be perfectly honest, I never really was all too excited about HD until I discovered HD VMD. It's capable of everything that Blu-Ray and HD-DVD is, but for A LOT cheaper. The players themselves are about the price of an HD-DVD player with the current price cuts, but HD VMD movies retail for $18 (USD)! With their players retailing from $150 - $210, they are priced close to high end upconverting DVD players. That alone makes them a decent deal, but then you factor in their unbelieveably cheap 1080p movies and that makes it a great deal. Then you factor in the cost of the other two HD formats and all the confusion that it has created with the average consumer. I think that HD VMD could surprise a lot of people and become the #1 HD format.

Reply

I voted HDDVD because Sony sucks and frankly none of them matter. Get an upconverting DVD player (just got mine a little while back and wow it is a good picture) and save yourself all the hassel and money!

Reply

HD DVD vs. Blu-Ray will crash and die before they catch on as HD video downloads from iTunes, Amazon Unbox, etc. take over (just like Minidisc never amounted to much because it lost out to MP3 players).

At that point, the high picture quality plus increased mobility (all your movies in one place, portable via iPods etc.) will be enough to entice people to repurchase their collections.

Reply

All these formats are so pointless that anything can happen. People like DVDs, that's it. They are not going to upgrade AGAIN so soon.

Reply

I paid £80 for my HD DVD player for my XBOX 360, and the picture quality is fantastic. Ok, I'm not going to rush out and buy everything again, but that isn't the point. I'll get all the new releases on HD DVD instead on DVD (Transformers is going to look fantastic!!), and just upscale what I already have. And I don't think downloading HD content is going to replace buying a disk. While MP3's only take a few minutes to download, a HD movie can be 4GB for less quality, and 8GB for better quality, and even then it doesn't match the actual disk. People aren't going to want to spend hours and hours downloading a movie.

Reply

While reading this, I got a chill down my back. I'll be bookmarking this so I can use it to embarras you 5 years from now when everyone is using HD VMD.

Reply

Moot point; Betamax blew VHS out of the water in terms of overall quality.

It was also first to market; I remember when we finally got a VHS VCR and how sorely disappointed I was in the quality of it.

The format that wins will be the format that is the cheapest, not the best. Still, I'm not putting any money on HD-VMD.

Reply

Ralph.. you might want to go do some research on BetaMax. It's not nearly as you say. VHS won for many reasons, and mostly on its own merits.

Yes, I know, marketing urban legend speak says otherwise, but go RTFA here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betamax

Reply

what is annoying is that if you decide to upgrade to hd-dvd or blu ray and have a movie, like Knocked up on HD-dvd -- you can't show it on a regular dvd player or at a friends house, unless you get that more expensive combo format

Reply

Boy, a lot to comment on here...

@Naf: You put this exactly as I would say it. I've got a huge collection of DVDs (well over 1000) and while I may replace a few select titles, I'm just as happy to keep them and upscale them with my HD-DVD player. As for the NEW titles, most of those run just a few dollars more to upgrade and buy the HD version so from here forward I'm investing my money in Hi-Def. What most of the Blu-Ray fanboys usually overlook (ok, we HD-DVD fanboys will do it too...) is that for the titles that are unavailable in our particular HD format of choice, we'll either find an import that is region free or we'll just pick up a traditional DVD and be satisfied with the upscale. IMHO, it is less of an issue than most fanboys make it out to be. After all, I've already GOT 1000+ titles I'm watching that way anyway. What's one more?

@Ralph & Stephen: Believe it or not, I'm one of the original Betamax owners from back in 1980-81 and I can tell you from experience the difference in who bought what and why. To say that Beta blew VHS out of the water quality wise needs more explanation than that. To be fair, VHS did bring video to the masses at a cheaper price point and let's face it - most Americans are CHEAP!!!

Addressing Ralph's point first: Head to head, an L-500 cassette (2 hours) vs. a T-120 cassette, both of them recorded at the standard speed will produce an extremely similar picture. There may be a few degrees of difference but for the most part the brand and grade of tape will make more difference than anything else. Now, the problem is that few people USED the standard speed because they wanted to maximize the amount of time on each cassette. This is where Beta really outperformed VHS. Even though a VHS cassette recorded six hours, the tape moved so slowly that the image recorded was much poorer than a three hour Beta cassette. Personally I would rather have a better image than more time on my cassettes.

The other issue was with time. Many movies were over two hours long - even if only by five or ten minutes. At that point, with a VHS, you had to resort to the crappy six hour speed so it would all fit. With Beta, all you have to do is BUY A LONGER TAPE. It took VHS years to come out with T-130s and T-160s. Betamax owners had the option of tape length pretty much the entire time they had their machines. That is a point overlooked in virtually every Beta/VHS argument I've ever seen.

To Stephen's point: I put off buying a VHS recorder as long as I possibly could but of course eventually I had no choice. VHS never really came out with any innovative features, especially once Beta folded. Everything that appeared on VHS was a "me too" feature that Sony came out with first on Beta. What they basically did was to simplify the tape path and the lessen the number of parts required to build each machine. This cheapened production and made it more affordable for the masses. Add the appearance that VHS tripled the recording time (when one overlooks the huge reduction in picture quality) and BINGO, we have a winner. In the '80s, that was all it really took to overtake Beta.

Reply

I say who cares about the Blue-ray and HD bit, and the new one that is now coming out. I have all kinds of DVD's and I am not going to go out and buy some new bit, when i can go and get a up-convert job for about $100.00 at Target.
And get a good picture..... All I need is a good picture...
For get all the HD and Blue-Ray and the new bit.... Good Old DVD's are just fine....

Reply

I think any format has a chance. I personally know no one (Family, friends, and co-workers) that owns a PS3/BluRay or HD-DVD player. The general population has not made a choice, myself included. I don't have a HDTV and don't feel the need for one in a while.

Reply

One more comment.
Like as mentioned some of us have lots of DVD's they do not die like tapes. They will last a long time 10 years plus.

So We have lots of time to see what is the next player. I doubt it will be any on the market now!
They have just hit the tip of the iceberg technology wise.

Soon there will be memory chips that keep HDTV movies on them, like USB thumb drives. No disks, players or tapes just plug into the TV or computer or cell phone etc. So do not waste your money on a HDTV player they are all absolute!

I will buy a DVD player when mine breaks, it is now but
works only with the remote.

Reply