HDDVD Got A Terrible Review in Los Angles Newspaper Today

[EdwardGein]

I'm sure you can find the article if you look up the Los Angeles Times online today in the business section I think. Essentially the writer said that for smaller HD TV's under around 37" the difference between picture quality on HD DVD was hardly noticeable between regular DVD's but he said it was very noticeable on larger HD TV's. Me personally, I'm happy with my regular DVD's & I think because of DVD quality this is going to go like SACD's & DVDA's but who knows.

[JeffKnob]

I'm sure you can find the article if you look up the Los Angeles Times online today in the business section I think. Essentially the writer said that for smaller HD TV's under around 37" the difference between picture quality on HD DVD was hardly noticeable between regular DVD's but he said it was very noticeable on larger HD TV's. Me personally, I'm happy with my regular DVD's & I think because of DVD quality this is going to go like SACD's & DVDA's but who knows.

This is crazy. Would you rather watch a show on a regular channel or an HD channel? I am sure the answer would be the HD channel. Regular broadcast channels are not quite as good as a DVD but an HD DVD is supposed to be as good or better than an HD channel.

[Geoffcin]

I'm sure you can find the article if you look up the Los Angeles Times online today in the business section I think. Essentially the writer said that for smaller HD TV's under around 37" the difference between picture quality on HD DVD was hardly noticeable between regular DVD's but he said it was very noticeable on larger HD TV's. Me personally, I'm happy with my regular DVD's & I think because of DVD quality this is going to go like SACD's & DVDA's but who knows.

It all has to do with angular distance. A 37" TV at 12ft will not show you much difference, at 8ft anyone would see it easily.

[musicman1999]

ed
Read the article,the tv that showed little difference was a 23 inch lcd.He did a blind test with a coworker on the 37 inch and he was only right 75 percent of the time.He did say that while the picture was better,it was not as big a difference as vhs to dvd was.The really bad thing he did say was that the player would not output hd through the component hook up.This is very bad news for a lot of people and,i think,for the format itself.

bill

[EdwardGein]

Yeah, that was the gist of the article. Sorry I didn't remember more details. One thing I'm still puzzled on as an aside, when a movie is shown in HD on TV is that how it will look on HDDVD or will it look so much better? I just can't see this taking off on a big scale, but who knows. I think people have gotten wise to the fact that whenever a new electronic format is introduced to the market, a much cheaper, much better one will be available within 2 years & unless it's something that is going to make a huge difference to them, if there budget is somewhat limited, they won't buy it. I think the picture quality is so good on most DVDs, the average household won't even be curious. Having said that, the difference between HDTV & regular TV to me is night & day.

[paul_pci]

read what they've been saying at digital bits: www.digitalbits.com.

[superpanavision70mm]

Oh yeah....well, HD-DVD will look amazing on my 13" b&w tube TV from 1984!!! j/k

[luvs2jam60]

A lot of this new format battle is going to vary based on everyone's setups. For example, connections between the player and the TV is KEY. Component video BARELY broadcasts in true HD. I say BARELY because I'm not really sure what the specs are and how the signal is truely send via component, but I can say is that on every technical website, it explains that it is a strained HD signal. Component video won't show that much of a difference with these new formats on these new players. In order to get the most out of them, you need an HDMI connection, which is guaranteed to broadcast HD all the way up to 1080p. My brother got one of the new toshibas and I think its amazing picture. He has it connected through HDMI, and has a 62" DLP. We brought the player over to my parents house to see if there was a difference, and they have a 50" plasma. We tried connecting via both HDMI and component there and it is quite a noticeable difference in quality.

[EdwardGein]

Per your statement which I may be misconstruing & if so I appologize, I get my HDTV via my cable company & the signal is connected by (my $80) component cables from the HD DVR Receiver to my HDTVs (HD Ready TV's if you wish to be technical). The HD pictures on both of these sets is perfect. If your commenting on HD DVD connections, I can't comment on them one way or the other. I do have my Progressive DVD players connected by component cable to my HDTV & the picture is what I consider perfect.

[edtyct]

Component video BARELY broadcasts in true HD. I say BARELY because I'm not really sure what the specs are and how the signal is truely send via component, but I can say is that on every technical website, it explains that it is a strained HD signal. Component video won't show that much of a difference with these new formats on these new players. In order to get the most out of them, you need an HDMI connection, which is guaranteed to broadcast HD all the way up to 1080p. My brother got one of the new toshibas and I think its amazing picture. He has it connected through HDMI, and has a 62" DLP. We brought the player over to my parents house to see if there was a difference, and they have a 50" plasma. We tried connecting via both HDMI and component there and it is quite a noticeable difference in quality.

luvs,

Not true. Component is capable of displaying everything that HDMI and DVI can. Any difference in quality is mainly a function of a slight attenuation at the highest frequencies. In fact, at times a component feed will look better than a noisy digital one precisely because its high-frequency performance will camouflage the noise. Each format, component and HDMI, has variables of execution across the chain that affect the end result, but in general, analog component with sufficient bandwidth largely matches HDMI video performance--except in the area of copy protection. There's the rub. That's why component might be downconverted to formats below 1080i and 720p on HD DVD and Blu-Ray. My understanding, however, is that such downconversion will be at the discretion of the content providers. If an HDCP flag accompanies the disk, analog HD won't work; otherwise it will.

Ed

[kexodusc]

As edtyct mentioned, HDMI is not technically superior to component video...it is not a replacement format, just an alternative.
Component video will not limit HDTV picture quality.

I don't know who this reviewer is and I don't care. I'm not going to read the article.

If anyone is naive enough to believe that 1080i/p or even 720p HD-DVD/BluRay pictures aren't far superior to the current 480p DVD format, all one has to do is look to the explosion of Hi-Def TV in the past 2 years. I recently watched "Finding Nemo" and "Kill Bill" in HD over my set-top box from my cable provider. It smoked my DVD versions. Admittedly, the 51" tv benefited more than my 32" TV, but both saw improvements. Wasn't even close. I suspect the HD-DVD version might be a tiny bit better since the signal has to travel less far etc.

Throw in future hi-resolution audio formats to replace Dolby Digital and DTS, and DVD just can't compete.

The kicker is the pricing scheme. Let's face it. DVD is still really good for most people. Everyone has known HD-DVD would be an evolutionary format, not a revolutionary format like DVD was. As long as these guys don't price themselves out of the market, the format should be fine. So far, prices seem to be reasonable.

I think the industry learned from SACD/DVD-A's mistakes somewhat, at least. I suspect it won't be too long until DVD's just aren't offered much anymore and you won't have a choice but to buy a newer format.

[edtyct]

HD disk versions stand a good chance of looking even better than broadcasts via cable, satellite, and OTA, if only because HD TV material is subject to varying amounts of compression that can show up on screen as blocky artifacts, as well as other sources of softness/noise along the video chain. Disks may have their own quality-control issues, but, by and large, they are far more controllable than those that surround TV broadcast and transmission. HD DVD and Blu-Ray should remove another veil from that "window on the world" experience that high definition can provide.

No disrespect to news journalists, but the truth is that they are a tremendous source of misinformation when it comes to abstruse electronics. Even publications like Consumer Reports get many of the details either wrong or slightly askew. Man on the street/common sense stories can have their appeal, but the tolerance for error when it comes to the fine, and not so fine, points of video technology, for instance, is really low. One poor article can cost a format a lot of interest that it may deserve. I'm hardly recommending that people rush out to buy an HD DVD player, but when the facts are at stake, please consider the source.

Ed

[shokhead]

The reviewer went to the bill paxton school of HT. Surround sound bothers him at the movie theater. Takes his focus away from the movie.

[robert393]

The reviewer went to the bill paxton school of HT. Surround sound bothers him at the movie theater. Takes his focus away from the movie.
LOL.....I swear I know people that say that!

[musicman1999]

ed
i agree with you i am going to sit this one out until everything is settled.Both formats will not survive,one will win and i dont want to get caught with the wrong one.I say this as i gaze over at my sacd player,oh well.I am more interested in the audio possibilities these formats present.Have you noticed that none of the higher end companies are getting involved in these new formats yet.
I had been looking at a new arcam dvd player,but i put it on hold to see the launch of the new formats,but i think i am going to pull the trigger.

bill

[edtyct]

The higher-end "cottage industries" can't afford to license or buy into new competing technologies and risk producing players that won't fly. The bigs can absorb this kind of loss, especially those that have a financial stake in the war, since a victory would mean oodles of revenue--much more than they would stand to lose if unsuccessful. There is even a hint of activity indicating that Sony and Toshiba may have a hand in producing HD drives et al. for each other through their various alliances. Don't cry for either of them.

[musicman1999]

point well taken.Companies like denon and yamaha dont seem to be getting involved however.

bill

[edtyct]

Yeah, I would imagine that nothing's in it for them at this point. So far as the video is concerned at this point, Denon and Yamaha are wise to behave more like cautious consumers than venture capitalists. But I'll bet that Denon, if not Yamaha as well, is making plans right now to implement decoding of DD plus, HD True, and DTS HD in their receivers.

[drseid]

luvs,

Not true. Component is capable of displaying everything that HDMI and DVI can. Any difference in quality is mainly a function of a slight attenuation at the highest frequencies. In fact, at times a component feed will look better than a noisy digital one precisely because its high-frequency performance will camouflage the noise. Each format, component and HDMI, has variables of execution across the chain that affect the end result, but in general, analog component with sufficient bandwidth largely matches HDMI video performance--except in the area of copy protection. There's the rub. That's why component might be downconverted to formats below 1080i and 720p on HD DVD and Blu-Ray. My understanding, however, is that such downconversion will be at the discretion of the content providers. If an HDCP flag accompanies the disk, analog HD won't work; otherwise it will.

Ed

This is absolutely correct Ed... Right now all HD material can play through the component outs... The only way the signal will be downgraded is if the studios choose to. Right now only Warner is still considering downconversion in the future (right now it works fine).

As for the review, there is too much BS to cover in one post. :-) Needless to say, as an owner, I love the picture on my 50 inch Sony HDTV through both the component and DVI/HDMI outputs. The discs look nothing like regular DVD, but just like everything else, the source material will have an effect on the overall impression of each disc.

---Dave

[ericl]

point well taken.Companies like denon and yamaha dont seem to be getting involved however.

bill
I talked to the Denon/Marantz rep at CES and he said they were in no hurry to produce a next gen player. They were going to wait for a winner or until it is cost effective to build a universal player, like they have with DVD-A/SACD.

[ericl]

This is a great thread.


HD disk versions stand a good chance of looking even better than broadcasts via cable, satellite, and OTA, if only because HD TV material is subject to varying amounts of compression that can show up on screen as blocky artifacts, as well as other sources of softness/noise along the video chain. Disks may have their own quality-control issues, but, by and large, they are far more controllable than those that surround TV broadcast and transmission. HD DVD and Blu-Ray should remove another veil from that "window on the world" experience that high definition can provide.

Also, isn't there the issue of the actual hardware playing this content? For example, on my setup, (Comcast HD dvr & Denon dvd2200 > 30" sony crt), I often prefer the look of my DVDs to HD broadcasts (although I haven't had many opportunities to directly compare a broadcast and dvd of the exact same content at the same time so maybe this is moot).

Is this a more a function of the quality of the broadcast, or the playback hardware? I imagine the denon is a superior machine, even though it is not hd capable. DVDs look really great on this combo. It is not as "perfect" and grainless as HD, but there is something about it - the smoothness, the saturation of colors, the more film like quality, that makes me prefer the Denon over HBO-HD movies. For this reason I am not dying to get a HD-DVD player. I guess the size of the tv is a factor here too. If i had a larger TV, I suppose this would be an issue. ok, done babbling..

[nightflier]

Two questions:

How good does a 480p picture look when upconverted to 720 or 1080?

Do different DVD's look better when upconverted? For example does a Superbit DVD look better?

[musicman1999]

If you sit too far from the screen,that may be part of it,also 30 inch screen is pretty smale to resolve hd.Bigger screen would help.

bill

[edtyct]

ericl,

It's always possible that a film in HD via cable or satellite comes from a poor source or from poor stock (many of the great films of the 1970s happened to be on grainy film stock that washed out the color). Also, broadcast material isn't always genuine HD but upconverted film or video. HBO's website tells whether particular programs are in "true" HD. I have found that true HD via cable is almost always superior to DVD. If it isn't, it's usually because the bandwidth is compromised, or the compression too severe. A 30" TV creates too level a playing field for hi def to get its due. Unless you're a couple of feet away from it, you won't see much of a difference between 1080i/720p and 480p. However, that scenario may well favor the look of DVD in the incidentals of color and "smoothness," since, with sharpness canceled out as a factor of difference, the feed with the least noise will have the advantage. On a larger screen, however, the greater resolution may be all that's necessary to tip the scale in favor of the HD broadcast, despite any mild artifacts. I have yet to see HD DVD, but I have no doubt that from what I know, corroborated by what I've read, that the picture will be spectacular on a good quality monitor of sufficient size at a proper viewing distance.

Night,

The perfect way to view 480p is on a moderately sized display with the same native resolution--that is, without scaling. How 480p looks upconverted to hi def resolutions by a display, a DVD player, or a processor will depend on how good the scaling and deinterlacing is; it can look very good. Sometimes upconversion of 480 material by a DVD player rather than a TV or display can result in a measurably sharper picture, and sometimes the difference is subtle or nonexistent. Well-mastered DVDs upconverted to an HD display will look better than mediocre ones. Magnifying material with serious flaws is never a pleasant experience. If you notice a difference between a superbit and a normal DVD on a 480p device, that difference will be reproduced in an upconverted iteration on an HD component, all other things being equal.

[Woochifer]

Yeah, I would imagine that nothing's in it for them at this point. So far as the video is concerned at this point, Denon and Yamaha are wise to behave more like cautious consumers than venture capitalists. But I'll bet that Denon, if not Yamaha as well, is making plans right now to implement decoding of DD plus, HD True, and DTS HD in their receivers.

I would guess that everyone's got plans for the new audio formats! (Anything to unleash a new round of upgradeitis) The timing will depend more on the chip manufacturers, since the receiver manufacturers buy their DSP processors and decoders from third party chip manufacturers such as Cirrus Logic, Analog Devices, Motorola, or TI. (Yamaha's an exception in that they make their own DSP chips, but a couple of years ago they began adding the faster TI processors to handle some of the processing functions) Once those chip makers start incorporating the new formats into their processors, then the format support will start showing up as receiver manufacturers do their normal annual updates.

There will be the usual lag time when one manufacturer might introduce a new feature before someone else does, but within a year or two, DD+, DD TrueHD, and DTS-HD support will likely be more the rule than the exception. It took about that long for features like DPLII and DTS to basically become standard equipment on receivers once those capabilities got added to the third party processors.

The only hangup might be any delays in getting HDMI 1.3 finalized, because right now, the audio support with HD-DVD is a mess. I read that the Toshiba model that came out last week can only output the DD+ signal digitally by recoding the output to DTS first! And the DD TrueHD support is only two-channel for now. Plus, HDMI hasn't yet shown up on most receivers. Manufacturers might be waiting for the dust to settle a bit more before moving forward.

[Woochifer]

The kicker is the pricing scheme. Let's face it. DVD is still really good for most people. Everyone has known HD-DVD would be an evolutionary format, not a revolutionary format like DVD was. As long as these guys don't price themselves out of the market, the format should be fine. So far, prices seem to be reasonable.

I think the industry learned from SACD/DVD-A's mistakes somewhat, at least. I suspect it won't be too long until DVD's just aren't offered much anymore and you won't have a choice but to buy a newer format.

It appears that the industry's about to start hedging its bets on the new formats. I just read that in early-May, Warner will release Rumour Has It on a dual format DVD/HD-DVD flipper disc. No idea if a DVD-only release will accompany the dual format version. This would seem to make sense if the studios want to ensure an orderly transition to the new formats. But, the drawback is that the dual format disc will retail for $40, which is $10 more than a typical new release DVD and $10 more than the other titles that have come out so far on single format HD-DVD.

http://www.avrev.com/news/0406/26.warner.shtml

[noek]

just my experience, my progressive dvd player comes in at 720i and is a much better picture than when it was set at 480p. That being said, even at 720i, when I watch an HD channel at 1080i it is incredibly clear, but not by much more than 720. I can imagine there would be a slight difference, but for me, I notice each resolution.

[drseid]

It appears that the industry's about to start hedging its bets on the new formats. I just read that in early-May, Warner will release Rumour Has It on a dual format DVD/HD-DVD flipper disc. No idea if a DVD-only release will accompany the dual format version. This would seem to make sense if the studios want to ensure an orderly transition to the new formats. But, the drawback is that the dual format disc will retail for $40, which is $10 more than a typical new release DVD and $10 more than the other titles that have come out so far on single format HD-DVD.

http://www.avrev.com/news/0406/26.warner.shtml

Yeah, I thought a dual format disc would be a good idea (just in case either HD-DVD does not pan out, at least you can also play the disc on a regular DVD player)... but if they price the discs like *this* one I would prefer if they would just give up on the idea. The studios would really need to release the discs at the same price as regular HD-DVDs ($29.95 retail for most up to $34.95 retail on the high end) in order for them to gain acceptance by most people who have bought an HD-DVD player or are thinking of doing so IMO.

---Dave

[edtyct]

noek,

True 720p (no such animal as 720i) is a degree crisper than 480p on a 720p display. In most cases, 480p, 720p, and 1080i look remarkably similar on 480p plasmas, but I've seen material recorded in true HD look conspicuously better on 480p displays than 480p material does. If 480 upconverted to 720p by your DVD player looks "much better" on your microdisplay than 480 material, your microdisplay's own scaling/deinterlacing must be truly dreadful. Remember, however, that DVD material upconverted to 720p is not truly hi def; it simply has been processed to be compatible with a display that can show material only at a certain pixel count.

If your satellite or cable receiver is set at 1080i for HD material because your display has a native resolution of 1080i or 1080p, you should set the DVD player to that format as well. Otherwise the TV will have to further upconvert the DVD player's feed from 720p to 1080i, which will probably soften the picture. The difference between 720p and 1080i feeds on monitors that have to scale to one or the other is often not visible to most people. But those anal retentives with magnifying glasses or extra-sensitive large displays might be able to pick out little motion artifacts in unprocessed 1080i that would not be there at 720p.

Your post seems to imply that you can see pure 480, 720, and 1080 feeds, which is rare in consumer components, since they all have native resolutions that require non-native material to be scaled to match it. On a microdisplay, the end result is either 480p, 720p, 768p, 1080i, or 1080p. On the vanishing CRTs, the choices are either 480i/p or 1080i. You never really see the other formats, except as processed.

[nightflier]

The reason I asked about upconversion is because I think this will be the requirement when everything is set to go HD & Digital on the broadcast end. So what we are really left with is how good will the old content (regular 480p DVDs, 480i broadcasts, and the few 720p-native content) look when upconverted to 1080?

If 1080i/p is the new standard resolution, then upconversion quality & processing will be the most important factors. If buying a standard DVD player, the questions will be if it can upconvert, and if so to what resolution, and finally how well. For HD-DVD & Blu-ray players the question should be how well do they upconvert 480p DVDs since that is 99% of the content out there and likely to remain so fo another couple of years.

As far as the sound advantages are concerned, don't flame me, but I think it's all marketing hype. If the "improvement" is going to be like the slight improvement of 7.1 over 6.1, then no thank you. Not for $1000 to get in and an extra $10-20 per disk. I still believe that most consumers would notice more of an improvement with a better set of speakers or more careful calibration than with one of these new formats. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong on this point, I'd sure love to hear a "whole new dimention in sound" but everytime I heard those words in reference to past "improvements," it's been a lot less impressive.

In my opinion, it will be the real, noticeable, visual advantages that will make or break the new formats. Unfortunately, I think the format war is giving movies-on-demand a real party-crasher boost and I won't buy any player until I see who comes out on top. Not to mention, how many consumers have TV's that can display 1080p?

[edtyct]

Night,

Upconversion from broadcast is a non-issue. Lots of programs and signals get upconverted now by displays, DVD players, and broadcast channels. Within a fairly wide corridor, the results are similar and acceptable. It's certainly not going to get worse; processing is improving all of the time. MPEG 4 is on the way, which will help with lingering artifacts. DVD player upconversion is elective; it isn't necessary for HD displays. By the time HD is truly mandated, every broadcast medium will feature it and adapt their content to it. The people with analog TV sets will be the most disadvantaged, though their pictures on small sets need not look too bad, depending on the quality of the D/A converters. Upconversion is no reason to delay HD; in fact, it's worse now than it will be in the future.

[The Tahitijack]

Aside from the technical discussion it will come down the money issue. Today the mass market will not pay $1,000 for a Blue Ray player and may not pay $500 for a HD DVD player after just a few years ago buying a new DVD player. Have you visited your favorite gas statiion this week? They wonder how long until this little wonderful toy is surpassed by the next big thing. Most will certainly will not be savy enough to purchase just the right cables to assure a perfect picture or spend hundreds to have the image dialed in by a pro. Its doubtful these will be properly explained and offered in a big box store or Costco. For the masses DVD was a big price/value jump from VHS but they could see a dramatic improvement in image and the player was cheep. The move from the little screen to the big screen was a major financial hit and most said ok we have the big screen, surround sound, reciever and dvd so they will continue satisfied with DVD and cautious of new voodoo for a while, maybe long enough to kill demand and new technology. Another concern mentioned above is that software will initially be limited. Even though most titles are easy to find on DVD mass market consumers have started to turn away from the rental stores in favor of on demand programing which can be enjoyed without the need for two visits to the video store or setting up a mail order plan. As the brodcast system shifts to HD programing in 2009 you have to consider most families will rather buy an HD movie on demand rather than pay between $500-$1000 for a player plus software at $20 per. The future is HD movies on demand and/or downloadable. Look no further than the ipod to see what will happen with movies.

[edtyct]

These are good points. The future certainly promises entertainment delivery systems that will make DVDs and their associated hardware seem positively prehistoric. But in the indeterminate meantime, the old school still exists. Consider the fact that the transition to a completely digital TV standard is stalled because of the vast number of people who still have analog sets and wouldn't know on demand if it bit them on the tuchas. The people with one-way cable cards represent another force. How many of them are satisfied enough now not to bother upgrading to on demand when the 2.0 cards arrive. A smaller percentage of people have software servers of their own that carry all of their films on hard drives available at the touch of a button; that percentage will grow. The tangibility factor can't be ignored either, especially for the DVD generations. I, for one, like having an actual palpable product sitting on my shelf that represents a movie. Some of my films are obscure. Who knows whether any publicly available server will ever bother to carry them. Films on disk have at least some semblance of cover art and sometimes even special features that may not be available for download later. Nonetheless, films on disk may have to offer advantages that online systems can't or don't--possibly freedom from bandwidth limitation, more resolution formats, or closer attention to the kind of detail that videophiles crave. Toshiba's initial production run of HD DVD players wasn't large, but it sold out almost in minutes. True, the buyers weren't from mainstream America, but who knows how many sales these hi def players/disks will need to make a go of it. Let's see how Blu-Ray does. If either option gets sufficiently established to wait out the inevitable lag time, it may well become the replacement for DVD as we know it for the foreseeable future. The entrenched habits of a culture die hard, and they don't necessarily change because of a new wrinkle that purports to simplify matters. One person's sure thing doesn't always appeal to everyone else. I don't know what will happen, but nothing seems etched in stone at this point.

[The Tahitijack]

edtyct,that was a nicely written counterpoint to my opinion. Perhaps we will see the Blue Ray/HD DVD war as a recycle the Beta/VHS war and eventually retro back to "broadcasting" as the most widely accepted form of entertainment, where broadcasting is defined as channels that include a huge library of on demand collectors editions of films including short subjects, international films and those treasured classics you and I would enjoy watching on the spur of the moment. Time will tell. one thing is for certain if we knew the future we could not have fun speculating on what it has in store for us. Until then we'll just stay tuned and see what happens. Thanks again for your points well taken.