Is 10yrs old too early to die?

[PeruvianSkies]

So the DVD format officially turns 10 years old and it would seem that some of us are ready for its funeral already, but is it a death that is all too quick? Was 10 years long enough? In fall fairness, most people didn't really catch on until the midway point, maybe around the year 2000 is when things started to shape up as the format had all sorts of early bugs, just like HD. VHS obviously had a longer run than DVD, but maybe it's time was too long and there are still those hanging onto those tapes.

Personally I have spent the past 7 or so years building up a substantial collection, near 1250 or so. However, I could/would have much more, but over the past 3 years have really scaled back due to lack of good titles, poor transfers, poor extras, lack of DTS support, etc etc. I am to the point where I pretty much own every movie that I truly love, although there are still some I want on DVD (THE AFRICAN QUEEN comes to mind), but I am patient. About 30% of my DVD collection is rare out-of-print or import-only stuff, which makes it cool, but sadly the US market dropped the ball on certain titles forcing me to look outside the borders. I'm not necessarily mad to see DVD fade away, more sad that it was never the format that it could have been and was lazily handled by many studios. MGM comes to mind as one studio that pawned off poor prints that were recycled often times from the Laserdisc and if more DTS support would have been given I think DVD could have been more dominant.

What's everyone elses feeling?

[Carl Reid]

So the DVD format officially turns 10 years old and it would seem that some of us are ready for its funeral already, but is it a death that is all too quick? Was 10 years long enough?
.................................................. .................................................. ..............
and if more DTS support would have been given I think DVD could have been more dominant.

What's everyone elses feeling?

I didn't realize that DVD is dying or that it isn't 'dominant'..... I thought it was the fastest selling electronic device in history (don't quote me on that, cuz I can't remember where I read that)... but anyway... DVD is very popular and I'm not sure what you think is killing it... What? Blue-Ray? HD-DVD? Have either of these formats started to significantly eat into the DVD market? Last I knew they were both still extremely expensive and having relative low sales compared to DVD...

Until you can pick up a good Blue-Ray/HD-DVD player for $70, I expect DVD to remain a viable and dominant format.

[audio_dude]

I think DVD will go the way of VHS, meaning that players will continue to fall, and the high end player market will dissapear. studios will continue to support the format for a few more years. then all players will be under $50 (like VCR's today)

[edtyct]

Too early for whom? Usually consumers lament an impending change because of a heavy investment in an old format and/or financial anxiety about a new one. I'm not sure that either concern is relevant, at least right now, for standard DVD, which is strongly entrenched. But only hobbists would care. If all of a sudden a better mousetrap appeared on the scene--and all of the major mousetrap companies were poised to produce it--no one would complain about the old mousetrap's early demise. In the case of DVD, however, or any other home-entertainment format that attracts enthusiasts (people who buy products and get attached to them--for all sorts of reasons), changes can be threatening because enthusiasts' tacit attraction to innovation often contradicts their identification with "tradition." But nothing is more regular than change, especially in a digital age. Phono systems, CRT TVs, and VHS machines hung around a long time because of analog inertia; digital products are on a different curve altogether.

[Mr Peabody]

I'm with Carl on this one,I don't see DVD going anywhere soon. For one thing HDTV isn't in everyone's home yet and they sure aren't going to be concerned about HD-DVD. The longer HD-DVD and Blu-ray battle, the more likely they will become a nitch product like SACD/DVD-A, and may even die like that, although I believe the video formats have more potential than that. Thankfully for those of us with large DVD collections the HD players will be backward compatible if they do take off.

If DVD was handled lazily it's because it didn't have a competing format. Keep in mind those of us on this board are audio, video or both, hobbyists, people I see day to day just are not plugged into the newer tecnologies. I have HDTV but other than here, it's rare to find others who do. The doors are staying open at the mass merchants so I'm sure HDTV's are going to somebody, I just can't find out who.

[s dog]

I'm with Carl on this one,I don't see DVD going anywhere soon. For one thing HDTV isn't in everyone's home yet and they sure aren't going to be concerned about HD-DVD. The longer HD-DVD and Blu-ray battle, the more likely they will become a nitch product like SACD/DVD-A, and may even die like that, although I believe the video formats have more potential than that. Thankfully for those of us with large DVD collections the HD players will be backward compatible if they do take off.

If DVD was handled lazily it's because it didn't have a competing format. Keep in mind those of us on this board are audio, video or both, hobbyists, people I see day to day just are not plugged into the newer tecnologies. I have HDTV but other than here, it's rare to find others who do. The doors are staying open at the mass merchants so I'm sure HDTV's are going to somebody, I just can't find out who. Out of the 50 people i work with only 4 of us have a HDTV, Heck some of them dont even know what it is.

[Dusty Chalk]

The short answer is yes. I know people who say I have just too many DVD's to want to replace them all now. They've got to wait a generation.

[PeruvianSkies]

I didn't realize that DVD is dying or that it isn't 'dominant'..... I thought it was the fastest selling electronic device in history (don't quote me on that, cuz I can't remember where I read that)... but anyway... DVD is very popular and I'm not sure what you think is killing it... What? Blue-Ray? HD-DVD? Have either of these formats started to significantly eat into the DVD market? Last I knew they were both still extremely expensive and having relative low sales compared to DVD...

Until you can pick up a good Blue-Ray/HD-DVD player for $70, I expect DVD to remain a viable and dominant format.

DVD will die a most likely slow death for some, just like VHS, which some people are still holding onto. I personally am not ready to switch over just yet, but I always knew the limitations that DVD had and the problems. While it has improved to some degree it becomes increasingly harder to watch DVD's when they don't look as good as HD programming. This is comparing even the best DVD's to HD programming, now if you actually get about 80% of the rest of the DVD's which are plagued with poor transfers than you have a no-contest HD winner.

My hope is that they do HD right and I am not convinced at this point that they are really ready to adopt a new format that can deliver what people want. People want superb picture, sound, and loads of extras. Until they get all 3 of those areas working in full glory most people will stay with what they have.

[kexodusc]

My take is a bit different.

DVD isn't dying, but the universal, dominant format might be. DVD-A and SACD still enjoy a few releases. They aren't mainstream, but so what? Neither are Ferarri's. Look at all the digital audio formats. We used to talk about them dying and disappearing. mp3 seems here to stay.

Slowly we're seeing more and more special-needs and niche products find their way to little corners of the market. It's happening in almost every industry, I think it's almost a certainty that by the time downloading movies and music becomes 25% of the industry's business, we will have seen the last truly dominant format. And that very well could be DVD.
How many video gaming formats are there? Music formats? Too many dollar-hungry media corps will put an end to the universal, standard format.

[GMichael]

When are they going to start storing movies on little memory chips? Seems to me that this would be the easiest way. My camera has a small chip that holds 4GB of memory. A couple of years ago 1GB was a big deal. Soon the 4GB's may be old and cost pennies. How much space does a movie (HD or not) take up? Will this spell the end for both DVD and HD-DVD/BLU-RAY?

[kexodusc]

When are they going to start storing movies on little memory chips? Seems to me that this would be the easiest way. My camera has a small chip that holds 4GB of memory. A couple of years ago 1GB was a big deal. Soon the 4GB's may be old and cost pennies. How much space does a movie (HD or not) take up? Will this spell the end for both DVD and HD-DVD/BLU-RAY?

This would make the most sense, I think...Rather than fancy lasers and expensive hardware, put the burden on software.

For now, I think these HD movie formats are holding 30-50 GB at least. That's gonna be an aweful expensive chip...but in a few years who knows?

I wonder how congested internet traffic would get if legal downloading HD movies became extremely popular? I think everyone's sort of banking on that being a viable future alternative.

Judging by the shelf space given to HD titles, number of HD players I see in stores, and even the slow transition to HD for television service providers, I kinda wonder if the whole HD thing is still really a few years away from taking over.

[recoveryone]

My 2 cents, even tho the the equipment is here the avarage Joe is still years behind the power curve. Many are buying widescreen T.V. 's but still do not have the supporting gear to push the devices to their full potential. Most people are relying on the the cable company,Direct T.V. to supply the highend content. People still are lost on which type of cable connnection (Component, HDMI, S-video, Compostie, Coax, Optic) needed to get the highend results. And we all know most people hate to read the manuals that comes with their gear, and would rather call a friend for the answer.

So just like the computer industry, the audio/video industry will need to color code all connection to help the reading impaired ( I seen this on my Vizio WS32") so them will not have to spend much time reading about how to connect the equipment. If not for Xbox and PS3 using the newer blu ray and HD DVD, they both would not even be as popular as they are. And with the format war in full swing will continue to keep even us some what knowledgable folks from spending our cash on the loser. It took about 5-7 years for the Beta and VHS wars to end. So it may be awhile for this one to sort itself out. We were just lucky that the DVD and DVIX war was short lived and DVIX still lives on the net as a download format. So in short people ONLY TIME WILL TELL.

[PeruvianSkies]

My take is a bit different.

DVD isn't dying, but the universal, dominant format might be. DVD-A and SACD still enjoy a few releases. They aren't mainstream, but so what? Neither are Ferarri's. Look at all the digital audio formats. We used to talk about them dying and disappearing. mp3 seems here to stay.

Slowly we're seeing more and more special-needs and niche products find their way to little corners of the market. It's happening in almost every industry, I think it's almost a certainty that by the time downloading movies and music becomes 25% of the industry's business, we will have seen the last truly dominant format. And that very well could be DVD.
How many video gaming formats are there? Music formats? Too many dollar-hungry media corps will put an end to the universal, standard format.

I don't really see the illustration here because comparing this to a car doesn't really hold up well. When someone buys a car they typically only buy ONE car. We are talking about formats here and the problem with SACD or DVD-A is the limited amount of titles that one can get and it would be great if you could get a wider selection of them. HD-DVD and Blu-ray are lightyears beyond where SACD and DVD-A are. At least people are talking about the HD formats and getting studio support to some extent. Few people see a need for higher resolution audio, which is unfortunate. Quite frankly the majority of people listen to music in their cars, on computer, on a boombox at work, or some small system while they do other things. It's only the small majority of people like us on this site that actually sit around and just absord music. Therefore SACD and DVD-A are quite useless in a car system.

[Smokey]

Unlike VHS, DVDs do not degrade (not at least as rapidly) over time due to wear and tear, or just by siting on shelf. I remember having the Star Treck movies on VHS, and may be played it 2 or 3 times. But after three or four years of just siting on the shelf, the picture got extremely noisy with faded colors. So it became worthless.

So as soon as DVD arrived, most people were glad to dump their VHS collection. But DVDs durability make it a commodity, and consumers might not be as quick to part with it as they did with VHS.

Sorry, I am just babbling :D

[PeruvianSkies]

Unlike VHS, DVDs do not degrade (not at least as rapidly) over time due to wear and tear, or just by siting on shelf. I remember having the Star Treck movies on VHS, and may be played it 2 or 3 times. But after three or four years of just siting on the shelf, the picture got extremely noisy with faded colors. So it became worthless.

So as soon as DVD arrived, most people were glad to dump their VHS collection. But DVDs durability make it a commodity, and consumers might not be as quick to part with it as they did with VHS.

Sorry, I am just babbling :D

I am somewhat convinced that they could put just about any movie or TV show of all time on DVD and there would be someone out there to buy it, the fact is that they have only hit about 15% of what is out there on DVD. There are still many films out there not on DVD and plenty of TV shows...I'm waiting for THE WONDER YEARS seasons on DVD....just kidding.

[kexodusc]

I don't really see the illustration here because comparing this to a car doesn't really hold up well. When someone buys a car they typically only buy ONE car. We are talking about formats here and the problem with SACD or DVD-A is the limited amount of titles that one can get and it would be great if you could get a wider selection of them. HD-DVD and Blu-ray are lightyears beyond where SACD and DVD-A are. At least people are talking about the HD formats and getting studio support to some extent. Few people see a need for higher resolution audio, which is unfortunate. Quite frankly the majority of people listen to music in their cars, on computer, on a boombox at work, or some small system while they do other things. It's only the small majority of people like us on this site that actually sit around and just absord music. Therefore SACD and DVD-A are quite useless in a car system.

The point made was simple and the Ferarri comparison is quite appropriate here if you stop thinking in terms of "format" and consider each format as just a different kind of video media. You don't need to be the dominant format, or dominant product in ANY market (ie, cars, movies/music media, etc) to enjoy a successful run. SACD and DVD-A didn't replace CD, but they continue to satisfy audiophiles in a niche market who want more than than standard CD audio. When it comes to music, they are the high performance, luxury items, much like Ferarri is in its industry...each made to satisfy a niche market ...Right now, so are HD-DVD and BluRay. Only a very small number of people right now are willing to drop the money to move from DVD. There's a lot of us here who'd love to make the switch, we're probably way ahead of the regular joe-consumer when it comes to adopting new audio/video products, but there's still a few too many barriers to entry for us.

For most of the market, DVD is still good enough. There's a huge number of individuals who hope and want HD formats to become more affordable and mainstream (I even hope Ferarri becomes more affordable and mainstream :) ). We're all sort of banking on this to happen, but there's a good chance that neither will never take over and completely replace DVD as the "only" format available.

I think the problem here is that we've all sort of become conditioned to expect only 1 format in which all titles are released. But who made that rule? Sure, it offers benefits. But I think as long as there's companies looking to make a buck, they'll find different ways to talk consumers into buying "their version" of a product.

If all the studios were to continue to support DVD indefinitely, and not "force" the market into a new product by gradually discontinuing support, who knows how long they could co-exist? It could be years before BluRay or HD-DVD win out over DVD. Neither may ever reach that level. HD-DVD and BluRay could very easily release titles to a relatively small HD capable (or willing) market, while standard DVD continues to sell for several years. By then, a few future formats might be tempting that same niche market to opt for the new high performance product.

Like I mentioned earlier, how many musical formats are there currently? Let's just look at digital audio formats. WMA, mp3, Ogg, flac, etc...each appeals to different crowds for different reasons. I can remember back in the late 90's everyone expected the less common formats to disappear eventually. Hasn't happened.

Your points about people listening in their cars, on their computers, etc, really emphasize my point. We could probably all get by with only 1 universal standard format, but I think it's a very real possibility that days of 1 format only are over. I use LP's, CD's, DVD-A, SACD, and 3 kinds of digital audio - 1 for home, 1 for the car, 1 for my portable player - each offers certain benefits that make it ideal for my needs in their respective application. Quite honestly, having multiple media formats can be a blessing, too.

For video, well, we could very easily be headed for something similar. Especially as Microsoft looks to really be pushing HD downloading in the future - this could eliminate the need for a disc-based format altogether for many people. I don't think the downloading option is going to replace buying a disc in the store any time soon, but I wouldn't be shocked if in 2 or 3 years it represents a significant portion of sales.

I think calling the DVD format dead (or predicting its demise in the near future) might be a bit premature. Especially with so many of the video enthusiast crowd sitting on the fence still waiting for a winner in the HD-DVD/BluRay war. As long as sizeable portion of the market continues to use only DVD players, they'll keep making new DVD's. This could go on for another 5 or 10 years. They'll even continue to sell DVD's long after it loses the #1 spot.

[GMichael]

So DVD's are not dying so much as they are growing old. There are a couple of new kids on the block. They have a lot of potential, but so far, still just kids. As these kids grow up, one may beat the other up. Bruised and beaten, the loser may limp on anyhow. Meanwhile, DVD's will still be in charge for a few more years. Some day, one of these kids will decide that it's time to take over, and challenge the old timer. Even then, the old timer won't die off right then and there. He'll pick up a cane at Wal-Mart and wobble on for another decade or so. Eventually he will fade away. And someday, these new kids will move on as well. Replaced by an even newer kid with more bravado than ever.

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

DVD was introduced at the same time as the first HD broadcast. DVD was always going to be a stopgap device until HD laserdisc came about. The fact that DVD became so popular with Joe-SixPack was something of a suprise.

[Mr Peabody]

I don't dispute what you say but I don't know how anyone could be surprised when with a purchase of a DVD player you got 5 to sometimes more free movies. DVD was also clearly more superior than VHS and what made it popular with Joe 6-pack was CONVENIENCE, no rewinding, chapter access, perfect stills. etc. These things aren't going to change with another disc format, so the question is, will a HD disc be obviously more superior than standard DVD and will anyone care.

[westcott]

I don't dispute what you say but I don't know how anyone could be surprised when with a purchase of a DVD player you got 5 to sometimes more free movies. DVD was also clearly more superior than VHS and what made it popular with Joe 6-pack was CONVENIENCE, no rewinding, chapter access, perfect stills. etc. These things aren't going to change with another disc format, so the question is, will a HD disc be obviously more superior than standard DVD and will anyone care.

I think Mr. Peabody brings up a good point. It is not video or audio quality that sells a format, for the most part, it is convenience. Remember, I am talking about the majority of buyers. Us audiphiles are in the minority and what we want does not add up to a hill of beans. It is a sad statement and we may not like it, but for most people, it is the truth.

Downloading has a huge potential, and due to its convenience, has made music sales in this format a huge factor. But, we all know that finding music you like in a lossless format is nex to impossible. CD quality is not even a standard. Even if HD material was available, bandwidth is still a major hurdle for most buyers.

DVD will die when a new, united standard, that is more convenient, provides a clear advantage,and is the same cost or cheaper when it enters the market IMO. If these things occur, the studios will support it.

[Woochifer]

Actually, I think the DVD format was probably born a few years too early (nothing new in that regard with digital formats). Right now, the company line from the various manufacturers pushing Blu-ray and HD-DVD is that the DVD was an "interim" format to hold the market over until the high definition formats come out. Interesting bit of revisionism going on right now, because this "interim" format just happened to evolve into the fastest growing consumer electronics format ever.

While the DVD format provided tangible benefits to consumers transitioning over from VHS and Laserdisc, it probably should have waited until the disc capacity and codec technologies were ready to support HD resolution. The HDTV specs were already in development in 1990, and the first HDTV sets came out in the late-90s. If the DVD had come out as a high definition format from the outset, the HDTV market would have taken hold a lot sooner and this idiotic format war between Blu-ray and HD-DVD would never have happened.

As it stands, Blu-ray and HD-DVD face a very uncertain market. Even though HDTV sales finally took off last year, it was wider availability of broadcast programming that drove those sales. With HD downloading and on-demand services looming, and the reality that Joe6pack very well might view the DVD fomat as "good enough," the market for HD video discs already has plenty of built-in impediments. Add this format war to the mix with neither format supported by all the major studios, and the DVD will not get supplanted anytime soon.

For most consumers, the DVD was their point of entry to 5.1 audio, progressive scan, random access chapter skipping, the now commonplace bonus features, and a much smaller form factor for their movie viewing. Blu-ray and HD-DVD simply provide better picture and audio quality, and enhanced multimedia/networking features. Those aspects might be highly consequential to a home theater enthusiast, but might not provide enough incentive to upgrade for most mainstream consumers, especially at the current pricing.

If anything, the DVD is simply at the end of its growth trajectory, because it's now the established dominant format rather than the upstart. Year-to-year sales continue to increase, but it's primarily new releases that now drive the market. Most of the popular catalog titles have already come out on DVD (in many cases, multiple times), and those with VHS and/or Laserdisc libraries have already repopulated their collections with DVD versions.

Keep in mind that it took six years for the DVD's market share to finally pass VHS, and even longer than that for the CD to supplant the cassette. Blu-ray and HD-DVD were only introduced last year, so there's plenty that still has to happen before either of those formats (or something else like HD downloading) surpass the DVD.

[PeruvianSkies]

[QUOTE=Woochifer
Keep in mind that it took six years for the DVD's market share to finally pass VHS, and even longer than that for the CD to supplant the cassette. Blu-ray and HD-DVD were only introduced last year, so there's plenty that still has to happen before either of those formats (or something else like HD downloading) surpass the DVD.[/QUOTE]

Ok we will keep that in mind. Thanks.

[Mr Peabody]

I still think the amount of HD content from satelite and cable is terrible. I have had cable now for 2 years and not a single new HD channel has been added. There's no excuse for that. I think it's just greed. As long as they keep it limited, they can continue to charge premium fees for it.

[pixelthis]

DVD is popular with the great unwashed, which means its over.
The future isnt any disc format, actually, its in a cable or sat signal.
MY town has VOD, over a fiber optic cable, with plenty of HD content,
a growing number of HD stations, and if you subscribe to a premium
service you get vod privliges on a lot of their content, incluing HD!
I can rent a standard def DVD or wait a few weeks and watch it over cable in HD and dont have to worry about returning it.
AND on top of that digital cable content in standard def looks pretty good on my flatscreen, usually is DD, and the difference just isnt worth renting a DVD over.
Unless you are a collector theres' really no reason to buy a DVD in my town anymore, and to heck with both HD and BLURAY.
Both are overpriced and underengineered, too many geegaws you'll never use (trust me) and no compelling reason for people paying 3 bucks a gallon for gas to buy one (saw a "five hundred" dollar HD player for 399$ at short circuit or sears the other day_
THE only REAL format that has a future is the HARD DRIVE,
and other means of digital storage, we cant afford to make plastic oil based discs anymore to deliver content when a stream of photons or electrons over a wire will do pretty much the same thing
Take a look at the music industry and all of the record stores shutting down if you want to see the future of hard copy video of ANY kind that you buy in a "brick and motar" store

[pixelthis]

My 2 cents, even tho the the equipment is here the avarage Joe is still years behind the power curve. Many are buying widescreen T.V. 's but still do not have the supporting gear to push the devices to their full potential. Most people are relying on the the cable company,Direct T.V. to supply the highend content. People still are lost on which type of cable connnection (Component, HDMI, S-video, Compostie, Coax, Optic) needed to get the highend results. And we all know most people hate to read the manuals that comes with their gear, and would rather call a friend for the answer.

So just like the computer industry, the audio/video industry will need to color code all connection to help the reading impaired ( I seen this on my Vizio WS32") so them will not have to spend much time reading about how to connect the equipment. If not for Xbox and PS3 using the newer blu ray and HD DVD, they both would not even be as popular as they are. And with the format war in full swing will continue to keep even us some what knowledgable folks from spending our cash on the loser. It took about 5-7 years for the Beta and VHS wars to end. So it may be awhile for this one to sort itself out. We were just lucky that the DVD and DVIX war was short lived and DVIX still lives on the net as a download format. So in short people ONLY TIME WILL TELL.
hey recovery one, the divix on the net has nothing to do with the ill fated divix of years past, dont ask why they named it that
and HOW DO YOU LIKE YOUR vizio?
I've had my 37 in for about six months and do NOTHING else but watch it

[thekid]

Pix-Kex

I agree with you all. I think it is really a question of format and delivery. At the moment and probably for some time to come we will see a variety of formats but the one that is able to be delivered cheapest to the masses will be the winner. The availability of movies on demand is limited and somewhat new so your Blockbuster, Netflix etc will keep the DVD around (heck my local store still stocks a fairly substantial number of VHS tapes)

Enthusiasts will always be looking for the next best thing or the status symbol (hence the Ferrari analogy works for me) but enthusiasts are a small segment of the marketplace though they often are the drivers of innovations within any given are technology. To further the car analogy that Kex mentioned, right now the DVD is the Model T of the industry-cheap to make-cheap to own and does the job most people need it for. Until a new "Model T" comes out or the public decides they want a car that comes in a color other than black and has more features the DVD has a life.

[westcott]

DVD is popular with the great unwashed, which means its over.
The future isnt any disc format, actually, its in a cable or sat signal.
MY town has VOD, over a fiber optic cable, with plenty of HD content,
a growing number of HD stations, and if you subscribe to a premium
service you get vod privliges on a lot of their content, incluing HD!
I can rent a standard def DVD or wait a few weeks and watch it over cable in HD and dont have to worry about returning it.
AND on top of that digital cable content in standard def looks pretty good on my flatscreen, usually is DD, and the difference just isnt worth renting a DVD over.
Unless you are a collector theres' really no reason to buy a DVD in my town anymore, and to heck with both HD and BLURAY.
Both are overpriced and underengineered, too many geegaws you'll never use (trust me) and no compelling reason for people paying 3 bucks a gallon for gas to buy one (saw a "five hundred" dollar HD player for 399$ at short circuit or sears the other day_
THE only REAL format that has a future is the HARD DRIVE,
and other means of digital storage, we cant afford to make plastic oil based discs anymore to deliver content when a stream of photons or electrons over a wire will do pretty much the same thing
Take a look at the music industry and all of the record stores shutting down if you want to see the future of hard copy video of ANY kind that you buy in a "brick and motar" store

I have yet to find an HD program that can match the audio quality of a standard DVD. This seems to be where the sat\cable companies feel they can compress more signal without the average Joe noticing. But, for me, I have gotten to the point where I would rather rent a standard DVD then watch a butchered HD program.

TNTHD is the worst. They cut off the left and right portion of the video, then stretch it to fit the entire 16:9 screen. Not much better than DVD. Pretty sad!

[edtyct]

[quote=pixelthis]the great unwashed

Who might they be, and who are you representing--the elite washed (who presumably are possessed of a higher knowledge) or the enthusiasts (though you've already dismissed them as ineffectual, and apparently not you)? Who's left, besides you?

(trust me) I'm sorry, but why should we do that? I'll bet you don't use all of the gee gaws on your TV either, but you still watch it. Many people (in a relative sense) have adopted Blu-ray and/or HD DVD with great success. The PQ is superior to anything that cable or satellite has been known to deliver, with gee gaws (if you like that sort of thing) that aren't ever likely to be available elsewhere.

One thing that you should do is decide what point you're arguing. Whether a format will actually catch fire and turn into VHS or DVD is irrelevant from a certain point of view. It is certainly not the same as claiming that it had no right to appear in the first place, or that it is a waste of technology. A new format's distinguishing characteristics and its appeal to a particular population may well be more important to interested parties than speculation about its longevity. If you think that hi def DVD should never have been offered because other delivery systems appeal to you more, you would do well to couch your opinion in less universal terms. It wouldn't take long at all to find well-scrubbed people who disagree with you.

[PeruvianSkies]

I have yet to find an HD program that can match the audio quality of a standard DVD. This seems to be where the sat\cable companies feel they can compress more signal without the average Joe noticing. But, for me, I have gotten to the point where I would rather rent a standard DVD then watch a butchered HD program.

TNTHD is the worst. They cut off the left and right portion of the video, then stretch it to fit the entire 16:9 screen. Not much better than DVD. Pretty sad!

This is a real shame. I have said this before on here, but feel the need to say it again because it's so insane. They first bastardize the film by cutting it for P&S, which means we lose about 35% of the film, then to make matters worse they stetch the film out to fill the frame making everyone look distorted and fat. So...we get an HD picture of a film that has been slaughtered, stretched, and squished.....sign me up for that! HAHHA.

[kexodusc]

My local HD provider sends the higher bitrate Dolby for HD broadcasts (484?). The SD simulcast is almost always a lower bitrate, but all that aside, I don't find the compression to be all that terrible - just the opposite, it is extremely well done. It's damn close to DVD quality and usually I'm so engaged in the movie that I don't concentrate on the few times you can hear artifacts.
As the switch to on-demand programming comes (which should save a ton of bandwidth) I expect the service will just continue to improve.
HDTV has been available for only a few years now, and really only took off in the last 18 months or so...

All that aside, I don't think we're in any danger of seeing cable/satellite/internet service replace a disc based format any time soon. The home-movie industry was built on one simple fact - people like owning a copy of the movie. That's not going to change anytime soon.
I could see video chains really getting squeezed out, however. They're losing in the convenience area to these alternatives big time.
For one, the PPV prices for on demand service are too high.

[emorphien]

There's no relationship between the DIVX DVDs and the DIVX format for video files commonly used for videos shared on the internet.

[pixelthis]

There's no relationship between the DIVX DVDs and the DIVX format for video files commonly used for videos shared on the internet.
like I said.
Why do you think they named this great format after one of the most hated lawyer engineered schemes in history??:confused:
BUT anyway I have seen a zillon formats launched, and trust me, like another poster said, it will be a niche format without the support of the masses.
BUT what really burns my keister about both hd and bluray is they are about selling new players and making money, not serving the consumer.
Much as I am leery of microsoft, they came out with a great format for HD, wouldnt have added much to the cost of a player and you could watch it on your HTPC if so inclined, and the pic and sound were great, I have two of the discs.
THIS is the type of low key format we need until the future becomes more clear, too bad it wouldnt sell emough players, which is what its all about.
So both camps turned out limozines when there is NO market for them,
I have seen plenty of people raving about their new DVD player, playing through a converter from "the shack" on a coax cable on a tv
with purple people on it, this is who you have to sell to.
I looked at a side by side demo at sears , HD versus standard DVD and it was sad, the difference was so subtle most lookin at it remarked
that they couldnt tell the difference, I could but just barely.
Dont get me wrong, I love toys probably as much as the next poster on this site(posted a lot of reviews as moviedog) but I smell the smell of death about these formats, hope I'm wrong
With all of the spending options these days most will look at these formats and decide that DVD is "good enough", if these formats make it it will be through heavy subsidizing .
The mass market will have the final say, the same people who picked
VHS over laserdisc, and if that doesnt scare you you cant be scared:sad:

[kexodusc]

I looked at a side by side demo at sears , HD versus standard DVD and it was sad, the difference was so subtle most lookin at it remarked that they couldnt tell the difference, I could but just barely.
Slow down, there, pard'ner, I may just have to call bulls</>h!t on that.
Were these people Morlocks or something? I don't know what the Sears are like there, but I do frequent quite a few a/v stores on my travels and one constant I've always observed is that HD discs on any system configured even halfway properly is far, far superior to DVD. It's not even close. There really is no comparison here - I'll even go so far as to say the difference in picture quality is at least as big a jump as it was from VHS to DVD - maybe more.

Either Sears can't figure out how to hook one up properly, or the TV's torch mode is unflattering, but HD is not just a subtle improvement.
Now, 1080i resolution to 1080p, even 720p to 1080p reaches a point of diminishing returns, which I could accept as subtle in most living room applications, but 480p to 1080i is a jump and then some.

The transition to HD is going to happen one way or another. Won't be long until all video recording equipment is HD and that's all we'll get...one format or another, doesn't matter to me...Like I said earlier, the home-movie industry was built on the fact people like owning "things". Tangible things they can touch..ie, a copy of the movie. That's not going to change anytime soon. 5-7 years from now we'll have at least 1 new mainstream HD disc format. It's not the first time people upgraded video electronics, most made the switch from VHS without much issue....these things just take a bit of time.

[emorphien]

like I said.
Why do you think they named this great format after one of the most hated lawyer engineered schemes in history??:confused:
I seem to recall the DIVX video format preceding the stupid discs.

[Mr Peabody]

Pixelthis, you are either fortunate or clueless. Let me say this in the nicest way possible, CABLE SUCKS!!! Our area is serviced by Charter and the company must be ran by the decendens of the 3 Stooges. They must put homeless people on the customer service phone with no training, they act like they have never seen a cable box and can't even tell me if PPV is HD or 5.1. My cable company has not added a single HD channel in 2 years.

My mom gave the kids a movie this weekend, Flushd Away, and it was a stupid full screen version. This made me think of this thread. If it is still profitable for movie companies to make full screen coppies, DVD ain't going anywhere soon. This is also evidence that HDTV has yet to be really "mainstream". Actually, when I look at movies at Wal-Mart,it is more difficult to find widescreen versions. I don't know if all this rederick is wishfl thinking or loss of touch with reality.

I'll be honest with you, I have 3 HDTV's, and I'm mad as hell that there isn't more HD content available. As a TV need arose I replaced it thinking HDTV was right around the corner. Yeah right.....

[pixelthis]

First things first, the demo was HD and on a 32 in screen, not the best of conditions, but this IS what people are seeing.
I must admit I saw a bluray demo at short circuit that was quite impressive.
But talking about the diff between 480 p and 1080i, the differences arent as great as most would think, when theres movement in a
interlaced pic of any type the resolution drops to HALF, which is
why 720p is superior to 1080i, not to mention artifacts that exist in any
interlaced format.
The reason hd beats the pants off of dvd is most DVDS are 480i,
if that, and deinterlaced to 480p, you wont get any rez increase over standard tv, just more "solid" and colorfull pictures.
So 1080i vs 480p in most cases is 540P versus 480i as far as rez goes.
AND yes I am blessed, my cable company in many ways is just as
medevial as most, but several years ago they switched to fiber optic (to the neighborhood in some cases, to the pole in others) and have been adding service, I guess they are nervous about the new upgrade coming from direct tv.
SO I have a modem, (1.5 mps last time I checked) a motorola
DVR cable box with HDMI, and a growing list of HD channels
ALL local stations, including PBS , both of the espns, A&E, INHD,
DISCOVERY (of course) , universal, golf, tnt, MHD (music vids and concerts) national geographic, and TNT., AND FOX SPORTS SOUTH.
STARZ, showtime, and max are premium channels, and HD if you subscribe.
ALL premium channels have some of their content on VOD (VIDEO
ON DEMAND) some of it HD and no charge if you subscribe to the service, and of course the usual pay-per-view, some HD
I set the rez on my box to 1080 and go, my TV seems to do a good job of presenting all of the standard digital material, dont know if the box upconverts it before it shoots it to my tv, but it looks great.
Perhaps living in a college town helps, we used tro be a "market survey site" because of our wide demograpic, got albums, comics, books, etc a few weeks before anybody else, perhaps this is comcast sticking their toe in the water.
Its great whatever it is, but HECK, it sure is expensive!:ciappa:

[kexodusc]

But talking about the diff between 480 p and 1080i, the differences arent as great as most would think, when theres movement in a
interlaced pic of any type the resolution drops to HALF, which is
why 720p is superior to 1080i, not to mention artifacts that exist in any
interlaced format.

In scenes with a lot of fast motion, 720p is a bit better..slower movement, dialogue, and large epic scenes with minimal movement resolve better in 1080i - which happens to be the majority of images in most TV/movies...hence the decision to 1080i on most TV programming. Sports being the exception.
The difference between 720p and 1080p, not nearly as noticeable to me as the diff from 480p to 720p. 1080i to 1080p in most scenes will go unnoticed unless we're talking about projectors on large screens...57" TV and lower, not so much.

[GMichael]

Pixelthis, you are either fortunate or clueless. Let me say this in the nicest way possible, CABLE SUCKS!!! Our area is serviced by Charter and the company must be ran by the decendens of the 3 Stooges. They must put homeless people on the customer service phone with no training, they act like they have never seen a cable box and can't even tell me if PPV is HD or 5.1. My cable company has not added a single HD channel in 2 years.

.....


HAHAHAHAHAHA Hey wait. I have cable! And yeah, they do suck. When I ordered the DVR's I told them to make sure I got the updated ones with HDMI. The homeless lady on the phone told me that they only have the one DVR and it doesn't have HDMI. I reluctantly ordered component cables from PE to wire the whole house. When the DVR's showed up, guess what connectors they had. Yup, HDMI. Jerks.

[recoveryone]

Hey Kex, I have to differ just a bit about the VHS change over to DVD. Just as with any other long used product, the VHS died a long slow death and still shows up as a ghost in small niche places. The VCR was a new toy for our parents (I'm 45 so I know a little bit) that they felt was the last real upgrade in the electronic age. The VCR was the first format that allowed people to own a film. So as technology advanced, I.E. DVD's most were not in a real hurry to jump on that band wagon. In many cases we baby boomer's (I'm on the tail end 1961) brought our parent's their first and possibly their only DVD player and first dvd movie. And like my self I had to get a dual machine that had both VCR and DVD, so they could still watch their collection of tapes.

I have been around to see music change formats 45,78,33 1/3 LP's to 8 track to cassettes to CD's to SACD/DVDA. Black & White TV's to Color CRT's to LCD's and more. And one day I too like my parents will just not get all excited about some newer format that will only show me the same old movie stories I seen over and over the years. And I am sure I will still be able to find DVD's somewhere to buy hopefully my kids/grand kids will buy me my first 3D movie viewer/hologram player.

[markw]

first off, comparing this to VHS is totally bogus. That's a different medium. You can't put a VHS tape in a DVD player ...or A SACD player ..or a computer drive. Get the picture?

It's a different medium, just like vinyl, both of which were of the analog era and crearted with a single purpose in mind.

These 5 1/4" discs were created with the intent that they could be used for many different purposes, all determined by how the discs were written and what machines they are played in.

But, you tell Joe Sixpack they are gonna stop making DVD's. I don't think he'll be too happy. There's no valid reason, aside from pure greed, that they can't make future video formats downward compatible with the current "Stone age" DVD format.

[PeruvianSkies]

Here's a question...

Why did a superior format like the 12" Laserdisc die? It was superior in all aspects when compared to the VHS format, except for it's size and perhaps the fact that you had to change sides or put in another disc, but even that was remedied with later players being able to play both sides.

Was it a lack of promotion? Was it a lack of knowledge? What was it? Maybe people just weren't ready to give up their beloved VHS tapes for something new just yet. This could be the same thing that happens to the HD formats. They are superior in sound, picture, and in time...extra features. Are people ready to get rid of their beloved DVD's? I still have about 70 Laserdiscs that I will not part with. I never owned a single VHS tape and I have over 1200 DVD's. I would love to get an HD player, but am waiting patiently for all the bugs to get worked out and for a player that can handle both formats beautifully. Until then....I stand in the corner with DVD.

[recoveryone]

good point Skies, I think that laser was just a bit out of the average joe price range back in the day. I remember seeing my first laser disk back in 79 or 80 and I thought then that was the next step. But I think the studio's back the VHS more and left the laser to died in the high end graveyard.

And for Mark, I can tell your a bit young to understand what I was saying in my earlier post. I was not comparing VHS to DVD as sources, but as the edge of technology to each generation. Please learn to read something and think about the impact of the words and not just the right and wrong of the message.

[PeruvianSkies]

good point Skies, I think that laser was just a bit out of the average joe price range back in the day. I remember seeing my first laser disk back in 79 or 80 and I thought then that was the next step. But I think the studio's back the VHS more and left the laser to died in the high end graveyard.

And for Mark, I can tell your a bit young to understand what I was saying in my earlier post. I was not comparing VHS to DVD as sources, but as the edge of technology to each generation. Please learn to read something and think about the impact of the words and not just the right and wrong of the message.

my join date was 1969....that's so awesome!!!! lol.

[markw]

Here's a question...

Why did a superior format like the 12" Laserdisc die? It was superior in all aspects when compared to the VHS format, except for it's size and perhaps the fact that you had to change sides or put in another disc, but even that was remedied with later players being able to play both sides.

Was it a lack of promotion? Was it a lack of knowledge? What was it? Maybe people just weren't ready to give up their beloved VHS tapes for something new just yet. This could be the same thing that happens to the HD formats. They are superior in sound, picture, and in time...extra features. Are people ready to get rid of their beloved DVD's? I still have about 70 Laserdiscs that I will not part with. I never owned a single VHS tape and I have over 1200 DVD's. I would love to get an HD player, but am waiting patiently for all the bugs to get worked out and for a player that can handle both formats beautifully. Until then....I stand in the corner with DVD.Did you ever time-shift with TV programs with that laserdisc? I did it all the time with a VHS recorder. That's the beauty of having a recordable media.

These magical 5 1/4" digital media storage devices, however, can be whatever it needs to be. It's a digital tablea rosa that cen be whatever the burner is programed to put on it. that same piee of plastic and aluminum can be a CD ROM, a redbook audio CD, an SACD. a DVD-Audio disc, a HD-DVD, a Blu-ray DVD, and most likely more that I forgot to mention. And, odds are it will be even more in another few months.

[markw]

And for Mark, I can tell your a bit young to understand what I was saying in my earlier post. I was not comparing VHS to DVD as sources, but as the edge of technology to each generation. Please learn to read something and think about the impact of the words and not just the right and wrong of the message.I was born in '49, watched the golden age of TV on first run shows and built my first tube amp in '62. ,,.and my oldest grandchild (out of five) is only 12, so I don't expect too many gifts from him yet, but his daddy knows what I like ;).

I subscribed to Audio, Hi-fidelity and Stereo Review (or wharever it was back then) and immirsec myself in this whole AV circus over the following 4+ decades, from both the inside and as a consumer.

And, as for impact vs. meaning of your words, I did consider them. You were simply wrong, that's all. Something I think you failed to notice in your time following this hobby is that it's convenience that rules the marketplace, not SOTA performance. That's the only reason that cassettes, and eventually CD's, did away with vinyl as a mainstream leader. And. while we're at it, VHS tapes had this in spades over laserdiscs as well. If SOTA was the main criteria, DAT would be common today and they would sell hi-end stereos at Wal-Mart, not $70 HTIB sets.

As for laserdics, it's biggest downfall was simply that you couldn't record on it. simple as that. If you could, it might still be around but. alas, you couldn't and it ain't. Time for it to join AM stereo, quadraphonic sound, elcassettes. two-speed cassettes and all the other outdated, unwanted, unneeded technology that served for a short period of time until more suitible means arrived.

At this time, the DVD, (Digital Versatile Disc) is truly the state of tangible media source. And, since it was designed from the get-go to be able to handle many different sources, it will most likely stay the common factor for quite some time to come.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD

[Mr Peabody]

The cable company can't tell me if our HDMI is activated but that would be easy enough to find out. If I may hijack for a moment, I also have a Motorola (Moxi) cable box, in the set up it has 1080i, 720p, 480p&i and you check what your TV can display, I checked all of them, is this wrong? I'm using component out into my Toshiba DLP. I was thinking, "well if I only check 720p or 1080i, what would happen on the SD stations". I don't know if the box can upconvert, so I checked them all.

[markw]

The cable company can't tell me if our HDMI is activated but that would be easy enough to find out. If I may hijack for a moment, I also have a Motorola (Moxi) cable box, in the set up it has 1080i, 720p, 480p&i and you check what your TV can display, I checked all of them, is this wrong? I'm using component out into my Toshiba DLP. I was thinking, "well if I only check 720p or 1080i, what would happen on the SD stations". I don't know if the box can upconvert, so I checked them all....I've got comcast with a Motorola HD box (dunno the model #) and it does output 1080i and it does upconvert any and all stations to that. The reason I can verify this is that I get about 20+ OTA stations and the 7 local network affiliates transmit OTA HD in either 720 or 1080 and, naturally, the SD stations are in 480. When these stations come in via cable, the box spits 'em out to the TV in 1080 and, if I say so myself, they all look pretty durn good. Not as good as HD, naturally, but they do NOT suck either.

And, when I power up the box, it displays the resolution it's outputting. I would hope yours does the same but, yes, the customer service reps I've encountered seem to be zombies for all the help they provide.

Oh, my STB does not have HDMI output but component is all it really needs as long as your TV accepts HD via component, and I think most do. And, for what it's worth, you lose nothing by using the cable box's component output, assuming it has one. That frees up a HDMI for another input, should you have one.

[pixelthis]

On my motorolla you turn it off, hit MENU, and there are a whole slew of options, including rez, pick a rez not compatible with your set and the pic disapears.
Before I had this box I had one with componet, and a TV that showed
the rez you were receiving, and that box output everything in 1080i, so I assume my new box with HDMI/DVI does also.
As for the "HOMELESS LADY " on the customer service line mentioned by one customer, well, I have had similar experiences, look,
cable service people, electronics sales people , most are minimum wage idiots who know NOTHING about electronics, I let the "service
tech" hook my new box up with the coax cable like he insisted on doing, and when he left I set my system up the way I like it.
I always wire my house the way I like it, replacing the quite often inferior splitters, cables, etc, with my own stuff. When I get sattelite
I always install it myself, Micheal fremmer once told a tale of a friend who watched sat for a year on his megabuck system, unaware that the sat box was hooked up with a COAX CABLE!
Not getting a good enough pic on your cable? Rerwire it with rg-6
and decent splitters, and assume it was installed by a high school dropout, IT PROBABLY WAS.
lOOK, AN ENGINEER WONT ANSWER YOUR PHONE WHEN YOU CALL THE CABLE COMPANY, or come to your house to help you.
Not that I mind, half the fun of this stuff is hooking it up yourself

[kexodusc]

I think the current market is a bit younger, and more tech savvy than when VHS, Laserdisc or even DVD were first introduced. To that effect, adopting new formats is more "palatable". Not necessarily more desireable, but there'll always be that portion of the market that wants the latest gadgets.

All I'm saying, is they more you do it, the easier it gets. I don't expect DVD to go belly up fast, I expect it to continue on indefinitely, but slowly, HD formats will replace them.

Face it, these same electronics companies built those DVD players, I'm sure the average joe mass market DVD player won't last 10 years...so in a few years, people will look at replacing them anyway. When the walk in the store, much like when I needed to replace my VHS player, they'll see an HD format for around the same price, or maybe they won't be able to find many DVD players. The gradual transition cycle continues.

We've been a victim of this orchestrated formula of planned-obsolescence for decades now with plenty of products. It's nothing new. HD is coming. If HDTV's werent' selling and becoming the standard I'd question it, but making the switch is going to become very easy for everyone in a few years.

As for Laserdisc. I don't know about studio support etc, but I know I was an early buyer, and regretted it. Couldn't find many good titles. And from the day I bought it I knew that DVD was lurking in the background and promised to be much better in several years. It happened sooner than I expected.

[PeruvianSkies]

Few people are aware of the fact that they experimented around with doing HD Laserdiscs and they easily could have made LD a recordable format. The beauty of LD still is the fact that you can do better freeze-frame than DVD and the audio compression is far less. There are still a few LD's that are worthy of ownership as there is YET to be a better edition in one way shape or form. They are (and not limited to)...

BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA (Criterion Ed.) the only edition of this film to actually have color accuracy throughout the entire film. The DVD releases in ALL forms including Superbit edition. The LD is the only version which accurately gets the greens and oranges correct.

RONIN DTS Unless you get the Region 2 UK edition of the DVD you get jipped on the US editions of this incredible film with the lack of DTS. This is a stellar DTS LD that is uncompressed glory and will blow away majority of any DVD's out there. This was also an HDCD CD soundtrack.

BLADE DTS this is the last DTS edition laserdisc issued and sadly was one of the reference discs of the format. Unless you have the Region 3 Japanese limited issue of this DVD than you also get ripped off from the superb DTS for this film. Region 1 misses out, fortunately the sequels DO have DTS, but the original film is in need of the DTS soundtrack as well.

BLADE RUNNER (Criterion Edition) The European theatrical release (also available on Criterion Laserdisc) is 117 minutes long and more explicit/violent than the original American version, with a few additions/differences from the US release.

-Batty kills Tyrell by pushing his thumbs in his eyes, which bleed copiously.
-Pris lifts Deckard up by his nostrils when she beats him up.
-Deckard shoots Pris a third time; there are also more shots of Pris kicking and screaming when she is shot by Deckard.
-Roy is shown while actually pushing the nail through his hand
-Deckard and Rachael are seen riding into the sunset

TAXI DRIVER (Criterion Ed.) One of the few films containing commentary by Scorsese, at least that is HIS films, he often does commentary for Powell&Pressburger films, this is the only commentary track that he has done for this film and was exclusive for Criterion, the DVD is owned by ColumbiaTristar and does not have rights to the commentary, which is superb.

The following are LD that have DTS soundtracks that have yet to be issued in Region 1 with that soundtrack, although some of these are available in other regions with DTS. They are:

INDEPENDENCE DAY
RANSOM
THE GAME
TRUE LIES
SHINE
ARMAGEDDON
VERTIGO
THE GETAWAY
THE ENGLISH PATIENT
EVITA
PHENOMENON
CRIMSON TIDE
THE LONG KISS GOODNIGHT
RED CORNER
FLUBBER
TIMECOP
CON AIR
HERCULES (Disney)
MOST WANTED
HEART AND SOULS
SPAWN: The Movie
HARD TARGET
LOST IN SPACE
MORTAL KOMBAT
FROM DUSK TIL DAWN
DEEP RISING
MIMIC
SCREAM 2
KULL THE CONQUEROR
THE MASK
VOLCANO
IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS
RUSH HOUR
SUDDEN DEATH
MAN IN THE IRON MASK
STRANGE DAYS
FIRESTORM
HALLOWEEN H20
LAST MAN STANDING
GREAT EXPECTATIONS
BOOGIE NIGHTS
VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED
HOODLUM
MR NICE GUY
FIRST STRIKE
HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME (Disney)
KINGPIN
STREET FIGHTER

you may notice that many of these titles are owned by Disney, New Line, or are crappy Jean Claude Van Damme films.

[markw]

...and they easily could have made LD a recordable format....But they didn't. By not doing so, videotape won by default. Game over. The fat lady has sung. It coulda been a contenda, but it threw in the towel. End of story.

You can gnash your teeth and wail all you want, but it's a dead format (and medium)

[PeruvianSkies]

...But they didn't. By not doing so, videotape won by default. Game over. The fat lady has sung. It coulda been a contenda, but it threw in the towel. End of story.

You can gnash your teeth and wail all you want, but it's a dead format (and medium)

I don't understand your aggression against me. I never said anything towards you to start a debate. I am simply stating the facts of the past. To some, LD is NOT dead. It still have viable use. Yes, it lost out to VHS in the end, but to real videophiles it never went away. While DVD has been a bridge to cross into the HD market...it will be interesting to see if they finally get some of these titles right the first time, unlike DVD. My post simply shows that DVD did not correct or for that matter improve upon quite a few LD, which is why they are still going for out-of-sight prices on eBay.

[markw]

I don't understand your aggression against me. I have no aggression against you. I just think you need a dose of reality to spice up your life.


I never said anything towards you to start a debate.No, but you did ask why laserdisc died, both as a format and a medium. I simply answered that question and it seems that you and another fanboy didn't like my answer and decided to jump on me, implying my "ignorance" was due to my lack of age, knowledge and experience in these matters. Sorry to disappoint you. but it was exactly that age, knowledge and experience that was able to quantify, in one simple sentence, why it died virtually stillborn.

It didn't record. QED.


I am simply stating the facts of the past.And I'm simply stating facts of the present. Audrey Hepburn was a beautiful lady but, alas, she's gone and nothing will change that. But I can still watch her on the movies (which are available on VHS and DVD) and wax poetically about her beauty and how it will never be equalled or surpassed. ...but that won't bring her back.


To some, LD is NOT dead. It still have viable use.And some still play 8-tracks as well.


Yes, it lost out to VHS in the end, but to real videophiles it never went away."real" videophiles? You certainly don't harbor any unrealistically high opinions of yourself now, do you? But thanks for putting up with us lowly, ignorant peons.


While DVD has been a bridge to cross into the HD market...it will be interesting to see if they finally get some of these titles right the first time, unlike DVD. My post simply shows that DVD did not correct or for that matter improve upon quite a few LD, which is why they are still going for out-of-sight prices on eBay.It's guys like you that live in the past that drive those prices up, not any qualitative reason. That quite a bridge. It seems that your main reason for liking laserdiscs is less of a technical nature as opposed to some additional footage so "getting it right" is more of a personal opinion than a hard fact.

And, like I said before, had laserdisc been planned correctly, with future growth and flexibility in mind, perhaps it would have gained a foothold with the public. As it is, those that did buy into it were quick to see the benefits of the DVD (and VHS recording ability) and jumped ship quite quickly.

And, I've seen laserdiscs. I sold them. I had them in my home, but I didn't have to buy them.

As I said, most people wanted to record and went tape. A few did prefer the picture (it was better than tape) but most wanted to be able to record. Likewise, had the rental shops shown an interest (or hada financial incentive) in stocking laserdiscs, that might have helped but again, better marketing of tape won out.

And, fwiw, these new HD formats beat the bejeezus out of laserdisc any day and guess which format/medium supports that? ..and will continue to evolve, improve and, most likely, still be able to play plain vanilla DVD's for the forseeable future as well.

What's that line from Star Trek? Oh yeah, "He's dead, Jim."

[Mr Peabody]

HEY! HEY! HEY!!! say what you will but leave the majestic 8-track out of it. 8-track was the beginning of "continuous play" man. And, it still is the apitomy of warm lush sounds. And! what other format, EVER, invented will allow you to sometimes listen to two songs at the same time?

[PeruvianSkies]

I have no aggression against you. I just think you need a dose of reality to spice up your life.

THANKS FOR THINKING YOU KNOW ME BETTER THAN I DO.

No, but you did ask why laserdisc died, both as a format and a medium. I simply answered that question and it seems that you and another fanboy didn't like my answer and decided to jump on me, implying my "ignorance" was due to my lack of age, knowledge and experience in these matters. Sorry to disappoint you. but it was exactly that age, knowledge and experience that was able to quantify, in one simple sentence, why it died virtually stillborn.

It didn't record. QED.

DON'T BLAME ME FOR OTHERS, I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT YOUR AGE, WHY DON'T YOU READ WHO WRITES WHAT SO THAT YOU ARE NOT HOLDING THE WRONG PERSON RESPONSIBLE. I NEVER SAID ANYTHING AGAINST YOU OR YOUR AGE.

And I'm simply stating facts of the present. Audrey Hepburn was a beautiful lady but, alas, she's gone and nothing will change that. But I can still watch her on the movies (which are available on VHS and DVD) and wax poetically about her beauty and how it will never be equalled or surpassed. ...but that won't bring her back.

And some still play 8-tracks as well.

THE FACTS OF THE PAST ARE NECESSARY IN KNOWING THE ONES OF THE PRESENT.

"real" videophiles? You certainly don't harbor any unrealistically high opinions of yourself now, do you? But thanks for putting up with us lowly, ignorant peons.

JUST STATING THE FACT THAT LD WAS GENERALLY FOR THE VIDEOPHILE GROUP.

It's guys like you that live in the past that drive those prices up, not any qualitative reason. That quite a bridge. It seems that your main reason for liking laserdiscs is less of a technical nature as opposed to some additional footage so "getting it right" is more of a personal opinion than a hard fact.

I LIVE IN THE PAST? I'M 27 YEARS OLD. I DON'T HAVE THAT MUCH OF A PAST. LD WENT OUT OF STYLE WHEN I WAS 18.

And, like I said before, had laserdisc been planned correctly, with future growth and flexibility in mind, perhaps it would have gained a foothold with the public. As it is, those that did buy into it were quick to see the benefits of the DVD (and VHS recording ability) and jumped ship quite quickly.

And, I've seen laserdiscs. I sold them. I had them in my home, but I didn't have to buy them.

GOOD FOR YOU.

As I said, most people wanted to record and went tape. A few did prefer the picture (it was better than tape) but most wanted to be able to record. Likewise, had the rental shops shown an interest (or hada financial incentive) in stocking laserdiscs, that might have helped but again, better marketing of tape won out.

And, fwiw, these new HD formats beat the bejeezus out of laserdisc any day and guess which format/medium supports that? ..and will continue to evolve, improve and, most likely, still be able to play plain vanilla DVD's for the forseeable future as well.

What's that line from Star Trek? Oh yeah, "He's dead, Jim."

WOW, DID YOU MEMERORIZE THAT LINE ALL BY YOURSELF?

[GMichael]

WOW, DID YOU MEMERORIZE THAT LINE ALL BY YOURSELF?

You do know that he only picks on you because you get so upset, right?

[recoveryone]

Hey skies, you just learn a good lesson, remember what I said in my post about reading the words for their impact and not the message of right and wrong. I saw this coming from this guy and just walked away. In time my friend you too will learn to see the writing on the wall before it falls on you.:ihih: Hey Mark its all good partner no disrepect intended but you response lead me to believe you were younger. (The cunning the wise walks off into the sunset to search out more audio/video knowledge and to share his wealth of it to others so they too may live to enjoy HT) lol................:5: :16: :16: my theme music.........

[PeruvianSkies]

Hey skies, you just learn a good lesson, remember what I said in my post about reading the words for their impact and not the message of right and wrong. I saw this coming from this guy and just walked away. In time my friend you too will learn to see the writing on the wall before it falls on you.:ihih: Hey Mark its all good partner no disrepect intended but you response lead me to believe you were younger. (The cunning the wise walks off into the sunset to search out more audio/video knowledge and to share his wealth of it to others so they too may live to enjoy HT) lol................:5: :16: :16: my theme music.........

why people can't be argumentative without being attackful. I love a good debate, but the lack of class with some people is amazing, especially when they are debating with you over something you never said or did.

[PeruvianSkies]

Hey skies, you just learn a good lesson, remember what I said in my post about reading the words for their impact and not the message of right and wrong. I saw this coming from this guy and just walked away. In time my friend you too will learn to see the writing on the wall before it falls on you.:ihih: Hey Mark its all good partner no disrepect intended but you response lead me to believe you were younger. (The cunning the wise walks off into the sunset to search out more audio/video knowledge and to share his wealth of it to others so they too may live to enjoy HT) lol................:5: :16: :16: my theme music.........


Is how he got all defensive about you thinking he was young and yet acts like I am living in the past, when I am a fraction of his age. Funny how that works.

[markw]

Hey skies, you just learn a good lesson, remember what I said in my post about reading the words for their impact and not the message of right and wrong. I saw this coming from this guy and just walked away. In time my friend you too will learn to see the writing on the wall before it falls on you.:ihih: Hey Mark its all good partner no disrepect intended but you response lead me to believe you were younger. (The cunning the wise walks off into the sunset to search out more audio/video knowledge and to share his wealth of it to others so they too may live to enjoy HT) lol................:5: :16: :16: my theme music.........What, in my posts, caused you to arrive at the conclusion that I was young, inexperienced and ignorant of the facts involved?

Again, as close as I can tell, a question was asked and I answered it. Unfortunately, it just wasn't the answer some wanted to hear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laserdisc (sec. 5 in particular)

As I said, it coulda been a contenda but between the non-recordable thing the way it was marketed here pretty much insured it's downfall. One of the good things about living through the era under discussion (and having sold it as well) is that it's really hard to argue with first-hand experience. ..but that doesn't matter to some people. They would rather go on believing what they choose.

[markw]

Is how he got all defensive about you thinking he was young and yet acts like I am living in the past, when I am a fraction of his age. Funny how that works.Ahn , the ignorance and arrogance of youth. I remember it well. I came as quite as shock to me also that there are people who know more than me.

But, don't get too cocky. You ain't one of them.

[PeruvianSkies]

Ahn , the ignorance and arrogance of youth. I remember it well. I came as quite as shock to me also that there are people who know more than me.

But, don't get too cocky. You ain't one of them.

Pffff.. A moment ago you thought I was living in the past, suddently I am just a dumb kid. Maybe you are confused or surprised by the fact that someone of my age knows a thing or two about things prior to my time. There are very few 27 year olds who even know what a Laserdisc even is, let alone owns quite a few.

Also, I am hardly arrogant, but you'll have to forgive me for defending myself against your attacks on me that came from nowhere. Once again, I never said anything negative against you. Do you need to re-read this thread?

[markw]

Pffff.. A moment ago you thought I was living in the past, suddently I am just a dumb kid.The two are not mutually exclusive. Only a dumb kid wouldn't be able to se that.


Maybe you are confused or surprised by the fact that someone of my age knows a thing or two about things prior to my time.Anybody can read and pick up choice facts of past history to support their beliefs. Living through the period provides a fuller, more balanced perspective, particularly when one was involved in marketing these babies.


There are very few 27 year olds who even know what a Laserdisc even is, let alone owns quite a few.And many people my age collect 78's, which pretty much predate us boomers, but you don't hear too many bemoaning their replacement by superioer media. They know better.


Also, I am hardly arrogant, but you'll have to forgive me for defending myself against your attacks on me that came from nowhere. Once again, I never said anything negative against you. Do you need to re-read this thread?No, I don't need to re-read this thread.Yes, you are arrogant. You think you know more and better than anyone else. You asked a question. I answered it. By ignoring the FACTS I presented to you in order to answer the answer to the question YOU posed, you tried to justify their (laserdiscs) continued existance in an argumentative style and inplied that anyonwe who doesn't see your point is, well, less than worthy of consideration.

Hey, don't argue with me. I didn't make the decision to make 'em obsolete. Argue with history. Facts are facts, even though they transpired before you were aware of them. There's that bit about selective history again. And, if you read that link you'll see that your beloved laserdiscs were not without their own problerms either.

You would rather believe what you want rather than accept what is. Yeah, the rest of the world is wrong, aren't they.

[PeruvianSkies]

No, I don't need to re-read this thread.Yes, you are arrogant. You think you know more and better than anyone else. .

This coming from the person who's a self-proclaimed ELITIST JERK. I couldn't agree more.

[recoveryone]

Hey mark, The part that gave me the thought of you being a bit young was your opening statement about why was I comparing VHS to DVD, when my post did nothing of the sort. The only referance of comparing was towards my parents generation and mine and the thinking of why do we need to change to another format. The message I wrote was for KEX and he seem to follow the line of thought I was going. But you saw somthing totally that was not there and added this VHS vs DVD thing.

For your age I would have guess you would be able to see where I was going more than others since you too have seen the changes in audio and video over the last 40 years. I'm sure your parents may have felt the same way about the TV when it first came on the scene. Why switch when the radio has all the programs I like and this new TV thing only has a few. As I was trying to point out each generation will get to a point that they will not be willing to jump ship so fast just because its a new shiny toy, unless it a real leap in technology. If you remember my last sentence I made a remark about one day I hope my kids/grandkids will buy me my first 3d/hologram viewer. Which would be the next real step in video technology. This is all I was saying Mark. So no I was not thinking you were ignorant, I would never say that about anyone on this forum, just not old enough to see where I was coming from. I hope this will ease things between you guys......

[PeruvianSkies]

Hey mark, The part that gave me the thought of you being a bit young was your opening statement about why was I comparing VHS to DVD, when my post did nothing of the sort. The only referance of comparing was towards my parents generation and mine and the thinking of why do we need to change to another format. The message I wrote was for KEX and he seem to follow the line of thought I was going. But you saw somthing totally that was not there and added this VHS vs DVD thing.

For your age I would have guess you would be able to see where I was going more than others since you too have seen the changes in audio and video over the last 40 years. I'm sure your parents may have felt the same way about the TV when it first came on the scene. Why switch when the radio has all the programs I like and this new TV thing only has a few. As I was trying to point out each generation will get to a point that they will not be willing to jump ship so fast just because its a new shiny toy, unless it a real leap in technology. If you remember my last sentence I made a remark about one day I hope my kids/grandkids will buy me my first 3d/hologram viewer. Which would be the next real step in video technology. This is all I was saying Mark. So no I was not thinking you were ignorant, I would never say that about anyone on this forum, just not old enough to see where I was coming from. I hope this will ease things between you guys......

Now you see this is the sign of a true gentleman who is willing to explain his remarks and try to resolve things in order to bring order to this chaos. I have alot of respect for recoveryone and have never had any beef with him in our time together on this site. I too am willing to accept my mistakes and even explain myself if I feel that I 'wronged' someone, but in this case I am not backing down because I never meant any harm or foul. I'll admit when I am wrong, but in this case I am not in the wrong. I would like to get along with all members of this site and I have only met a few people that seem far too difficult to deal with. I've had my share of arguments with Florian over the past year or so and while I don't always agree with him I still respect him as a person and his accomplishments. Sometimes it's just simply misunderstandings and if you can point out in this thread where I offended someone before getting into this fight than I would certainly re-visit my actions.

[markw]

Media is what the content is stored on. It's what we physically hold in our hands.

Format is how the data is stored on that media.

Vinyl is one "media" and the only "format" it accepts is those wiggly groves that are on what we call records.

Likewise, magnetic tape is another media. Depending on how it's packaged, it can store sounds or it can store video, or it can store both. As you might guess, this "media" is more flexible than vinyl.

DVD's, or "digital versatile discs" were a media designed simply as repositories of burned holes, which represent digital data. As such, it's usefulness is limited by only the scientists and engineers imagination. So far, the "formats" it's been used to store is computer data, audio (several flavors) video (also several flavors) and who knows whatelse will be put on hte rin the future. Now, a lot of the hardware designed for these "formats" are downward compatible. i.e SACD and DVD-Audio players can play redbook CD's, Hi Def video players can play standard DVD's and, I believe, redbook CD's as well,

Aside from their total inability to record (which was the biggie), laserdiscs were a media that was limited to only one format and, it seems, there were even several of those that were incompatible with each other. So, like recors, you could only play laserdiscs on one player. But, at least with records you could play any record on any player. Laserdiscs had several competing formats going against it as well, just like SACD/DVD-Audio and HD-DVD/Blu-Ray. But this pales in comparison tho their one fatal flaw. They couldn't record!

So, while offering a superior picture to videotapes at their time of release, they failed to address the one thing that tapes did that they could not do and that was the cause of their slow decline into a niche market and eventually oblivion. That's like the beginning of "Spies Like Us" where they design a missle that only has one minor flaw.. .it doesn't work in water. Then someone said "Didn't you ever hear of rain?"

Aas vor DVD's, well, since most new hardware products are "downward compatible", it stands to reason that as long as they can make money off a certain format, it will behoove them to continue to offer it. And, as long as they follow that trend, one should be able to continue to enjoy their CD's and DVD's on virtually any player made in the forseeable future.

DVD's offered a superior picture to laserdiscs from first the day they were introduced. That alone justified the new "format", although the "media" had been around for almost twenty years by now. Tapes limped on for a few more years as a cheap recordable media but soon that would change. Heck, I still use VHS for recording TV shows and probably will for the forseeable future.

While DVD's were initially they were not recordable, it was promised that they soon would be and after a few years they made good on their word and offered recordable DVD's.

In the laserdisc's almost twenty years of existance it never did offer recordability. Now, with DVD's superior picture and it's ability to record, laserdisc's days were numbered.

Such is the beauty of a "media" that has been designed to allow various "formats". From the day CD's were released in this world, all other "media" that had one media, one format, and one player was facing the eventual end. Since then we've seen the virtual end of vinyl and tape. While it still exists in a niche market (partucularly vinyl), the world had embraced DVD's,

I'm sure there will be even further "formats" released on DVD's in the future. The market demands improvements. We've seen that in audio with SACD and DVD-Audio and video and it's HD-DVD and Blu-Ray formats. But, both still play the plain vanilla versions of what was initially released, redbook CD and DVD's as originallty released.

While the format may change, the media stays the same and what plays on hardware today will most likely be playable in the forseeable future on newer iterations of hardware.

So, boys, perhaps this is what I should have said first? I would have thought that "it didn't record" would have been sufficient, but I guess not, eh?

[Dusty Chalk]

Slow down, there, pard'ner, I may just have to call bulls</>h!t on that.
Were these people Morlocks or something? I don't know what the Sears are like there, but I do frequent quite a few a/v stores on my travels and one constant I've always observed is that HD discs on any system configured even halfway properly is far, far superior to DVD.And I'm going to have to call reverse bullsh<a>it on that -- I get to watch nicely line-doubled DVD pretty much every weekend at a friend of mine's, and you cannot tell the difference between that and HD, unless it's a live feed such as Leno or ESPN. A well set up DVD system will compete with a HD system.

[pixelthis]

And I'm going to have to call reverse bullsh<a>it on that -- I get to watch nicely line-doubled DVD pretty much every weekend at a friend of mine's, and you cannot tell the difference between that and HD, unless it's a live feed such as Leno or ESPN. A well set up DVD system will compete with a HD system.

amen, and because theres not really that much difference.
AS for laserdisc, I am glad peruvian brought this up, because this is the point I was trying to make , the new high-def formats arent replacements for DVD, they are replacements for LASERDISC.
A nice market item with high performance that the mass market doesnt
really care about, aimed at collectors of movies who want sterling quality, I mean, really, most of my friends were wowed by my laserdiscs in the 80's and 90's, but not enough to buy one, and really,
it wouldnt have helped them much, hooked up to their plastic
"shelf systems" and wallmart tvs, anymore than todays plastic "HTIB"
crap from the last boat in from china will benefit from todays HD PLAYERS
Glad you brought up LASERDISC, I was there, this format was really nice, even beating early DVDS, the people who wanted VHS instead so they could "record" on it couldnt even figure out how to set the clock, most times, much less record anything, they came out with a TALKING VCR and people STILL couldnt figure out how to use it.
And lets not forget S-VHS, people stayed away from this format in droves in spite of the better picture, just like they're gonna stay away from these new formats in droves, the increased quality wont be enough for most people to write off the investment in their 40$
PLASTIC PLAYERS from the far east

[edtyct]

My better judgment tells me to stay out of this discussion when the authorities on the subject have plainly spoken, but why be self-judgmental at a time like this? First of all, those of you who claim that high definition isn't much more resolved than "line doubled" standard definition either haven't seen much high definition (or high definition set up correctly), are watching small displays, are sitting far enough away from displays to make any questions of resolution otiose, or simply don't want it to be. Line doubling (for the purposes of this point, scaling/ deinterlacing) doesn't increase resolution; it is nothing but an attempt to make lower-resolution material compatible with the larger pixel counts and progressive capability of digital screens. If done well, it doesn't suffer too many visible indignities; if not, it will bleed like a stuck pig. If you find it satisfactory, more power to you, but it ain't HD.

Laserdisc was certainly an enthusiasts' medium that far exceeded the resolution of VHS tape at the time and offered the kind of extra features that have become all but routine on DVDs. However, laserdisc was an analog format that tapped out at about 425 lines of resolution (as we used to put it in the old days). When DVD first reared its head as a replacement for VHS (not for laserdisc, which didn't count since it had barely made a dent in the market), LD afficionados were skeptical that any format could look better than its current holy grail and worried that, as a mass medium, DVD wouldn't support LD's elevated extras. I was among them. This concern in large part anticipated the kind of anxiety that many people here express about the new hi def DVDs and about hi def in general; they don't want to leave their comfort zone for something new and unknown. But it became apparent rather quickly that the better DVDs easily exceeded the performance of LD; still, we worried that DVD performance would decline with market saturation. It did in some cases, but, if truth be told, LD had its share of dogs, too. Certain specialty companies--notably, Criterion--offered product as consistently good as the negatives and interpositives at their disposal allowed, but many disks were run of the mill, especcially in comparison with the better DVDs. Moreover, LD's CAV disks were the toast of the format, but since CLV disks were cheaper, easier to manufacture, and more convenient, they won the day. In short, LD was sterling quality in the days of VHS, and it still may carry for some an aura of videophile non plus ultra, but the facts of the case make its supercession completely understandable. Its time is gone. DVD trumped it because it represented progress in every sense (though without the rarefied elite air that LD carried for some), just as hi def in some form will eventually trump DVD, regardless of who is still holding out for whatever reasons when the time comes.

[westcott]

I think most of us need to keep in mind that many of us with "HD", really are not getting an HD signal. Those with HD DVD or BR are the minority.

Cable and Satellite have compressed the HD signal, by as much as half, from some of the articles I have ran across. And, as edtyct pointed out, smaller displays really are not a true test of a formats limitations. Stretch SD and DVDs to 100+ inches and their short comings really start to become apparent. Now, I have to admit, some of the better recordings on DVD today do look pretty damn good and rival much of the "HD" content via satellite, but it is usually the exception, than the norm. And, as I pointed out earlier, it is not true HD. HD video does widen the distance between DVD and HD and this is when it becomes readily apparent that HD is the wave of the future. Just wish the format war had an immediate solution so that I could justify spending my hard earned cash on a player now. HDCP is really killing the sales efforts of HD players, IMO. Without good content, the best picture in the world is not going to entice me into spending a lot of money for it. Until the studios can be assured that they can protect the classics in their library, we are not going to see them. And that is not going to happen until HDCP is implemented IMO.

[PeruvianSkies]

I think most of us need to keep in mind that many of us with "HD", really are not getting an HD signal. Those with HD DVD or BR are the minority.

Cable and Satellite have compressed the HD signal, by as much as half, from some of the articles I have ran across. And, as edtyct pointed out, smaller displays really are not a true test of a formats limitations. Stretch SD and DVDs to 100+ inches and their short comings really start to become apparent. Now, I have to admit, some of the better recordings on DVD today do look pretty damn good and rival much of the "HD" content via satellite, but it is usually the exception, than the norm. And, as I pointed out earlier, it is not true HD. HD video does widen the distance between DVD and HD and this is when it becomes readily apparent that HD is the wave of the future. Just wish the format war had an immediate solution so that I could justify spending my hard earned cash on a player now. HDCP is really killing the sales efforts of HD players, IMO. Without good content, the best picture in the world is not going to entice me into spending a lot of money for it. Until the studios can be assured that they can protect the classics in their library, we are not going to see them. And that is not going to happen until HDCP is implemented IMO.

I agree with Westcott and Edtyct completely on this one!!!

[recoveryone]

I knew there was something special about Ed, thats why we call him Special Ed....lol

Good points Ed

[kexodusc]

And I'm going to have to call reverse bullsh<a>it on that -- I get to watch nicely line-doubled DVD pretty much every weekend at a friend of mine's, and you cannot tell the difference between that and HD, unless it's a live feed such as Leno or ESPN. A well set up DVD system will compete with a HD system.
And I'll call a triple, double-stampsies, no-erasies...er...whatever.

A well set up DVD system like mine doesn't even compete with my equally well setup HD cable system. I've only got a 51" set. Any bigger and it's almost painful to go back to DVD. Especially once your start reaching 40 + inches in screen size. It's not even close and not debatable. We can pull all the deinterlacing line doubling upscaling enhancements off we want to - in my experience they remind me too much of audio DSP's destructive as much as constructive - it still not up to par. Not to mention the audio quality enhancement on the new formats...

Are you only comparing compressed HD cable broadcasts with DVD? I suppose if the services was terribly crappy, I could see it. Also, the majority of programming still isn't filmed, recorded, and broadcast in HD, it just plays on an HD channel. IE the less than stellar Seinfeld on Fox.
Put simply, play a typical movie scene inHD-DVD and DVD on the same set, and I could pick the 2 apart in seconds, 100% of the time. To me, it's far more noticeable than the differences in most audio formats. I'm not one make mountains out of molehills when it comes to differences in electronics, but this is just one area where the hype is true. Now, differences in 1080i vs 1080p - we're starting to hit diminishing returns aweful fast...

I've only seen HD on screens 32" or larger, but they've always been big fat improvements. Maybe on a 19" black and white screen we're splitting hairs - but...

Edit...by the way, you actually took the time to go and went out of your way to insert empty tags around the i in sh!t? You badass. :D

[PeruvianSkies]

And I'll call a triple, double-stampsies, no-erasies...er...whatever.

A well set up DVD system like mine doesn't even compete with my equally well setup HD cable system. I've only got a 51" set. Any bigger and it's almost painful to go back to DVD. Especially once your start reaching 40 + inches in screen size. It's not even close and not debatable. We can pull all the deinterlacing line doubling upscaling enhancements off we want to - in my experience they remind me too much of audio DSP's destructive as much as constructive - it still not up to par. Not to mention the audio quality enhancement on the new formats...

Are you only comparing compressed HD cable broadcasts with DVD? I suppose if the services was terribly crappy, I could see it. Also, the majority of programming still isn't filmed, recorded, and broadcast in HD, it just plays on an HD channel. IE the less than stellar Seinfeld on Fox.
Put simply, play a typical movie scene inHD-DVD and DVD on the same set, and I could pick the 2 apart in seconds, 100% of the time. To me, it's far more noticeable than the differences in most audio formats. I'm not one make mountains out of molehills when it comes to differences in electronics, but this is just one area where the hype is true. Now, differences in 1080i vs 1080p - we're starting to hit diminishing returns aweful fast...

I've only seen HD on screens 32" or larger, but they've always been big fat improvements. Maybe on a 19" black and white screen we're splitting hairs - but...

Edit...by the way, you actually took the time to go and went out of your way to insert empty tags around the i in sh!t? You badass. :D

preach on Kex preach on!!!!

[Dusty Chalk]

First of all, those of you who claim that high definition isn't much more resolved than "line doubled" standard definition either haven't seen much high definition (or high definition set up correctly), are watching small displays, are sitting far enough away from displays to make any questions of resolution otiose, or simply don't want it to be. You're wrong. Visually, this is simply one of the finest HT setups I have ever seen. My friend has a background in television, and connections to the industry, so don't try to tell me he doesn't know what he's doing, he spends as much time tweaking his video system as the rest of us spend on our audio systems. The line-doubler is many years old at this point (ancient by the rate at which technology matures), but was a top-of-the-line jobber in its day -- I think he said it retailed for US$20K when new (that's of course not what he paid for it). Or maybe that was the projector...I forget...but it's really good and very film-like. Stuff like Finding Nemo is just exquisite, and when I was arguing about how badly Blade Runner looked, he pulled out his copy and made me watch the opening sequence, and I have to admit to not being able to see any artifacts. Setup is everything with these systems, and I'd put my friend's system up against any HD system any day.

Let's compare to CD -- CD is only just finally becoming mature as an audio format. Sure SACD and DVD-Audio are better, but most of us haven't heard what CD is capable of, and those of us who have, haven't until the last couple of years. I think the digital mastering technology is only finally hitting the ceiling, and it has yet to propagate to the entire market. And DVD is a less mature technology than CD.

I'm not saying HD isn't better, I'm just saying it's not far better. It'll be a while before I can afford a system (or that technology trickles down to the point where it's widely accessible) of the caliber I describe, and sure, HD will be a big improvement against most people's systems (if one includes laypeople) -- but that's not a fair comparison. Compare well setup against well setup, and I think you'll find that the differences are not as glaring as is being said.

[Dusty Chalk]

We can pull all the deinterlacing line doubling upscaling enhancements off we want to - in my experience they remind me too much of audio DSP's destructive as much as constructive - it still not up to par. I would like to believe you'd rethink your position if you ever saw my friend's system. I agree that most people don't know what they're doing -- not this guy.
Are you only comparing compressed HD cable broadcasts with DVD? No, as I mentioned -- Leno and ESPN look exquisite -- and yes, they do look better than upscaled DVD. But it's more a function of the source material (think PCM-mastered SACDs) -- when comparing digitized film to digitized film (which is what most television shows are), then they look equally good (he has them on the same system, so they're both going through the same processors, except for the upscaler in the case of HD television). I'll ask him if he knows about the HD feeds being compressed -- I'm sure he does, we just haven't discussed it.

And we compared movie to movie -- it had to be something we had access to, for fair comparison's sake.
Put simply, play a typical movie scene inHD-DVD and DVD on the same set, and I could pick the 2 apart in seconds, 100% of the time. I guarantee you, you would falter on this system. I don't know if you're a goldeneyes, so I won't say you won't be able to tell the difference, but I couldn't. He could (I think), but he's happy with his system, so is willing to compromise. He's a long way off from needing to go high-def. (His only true high-def source is cable -- he doesn't have a player.)
Edit...by the way, you actually took the time to go and went out of your way to insert empty tags around the i in sh!t? You badass. :DDude, it was three keystrokes. If I'm a badass, I'm a lazyass badass.

[kexodusc]

I would like to believe you'd rethink your position if you ever saw my friend's system. I agree that most people don't know what they're doing -- not this guy.No, as I mentioned -- Leno and ESPN look exquisite -- and yes, they do look better than upscaled DVD. But it's more a function of the source material (think PCM-mastered SACDs) -- when comparing digitized film to digitized film (which is what most television shows are), then they look equally good (he has them on the same system, so they're both going through the same processors, except for the upscaler in the case of HD television). I'll ask him if he knows about the HD feeds being compressed -- I'm sure he does, we just haven't discussed it.

And we compared movie to movie -- it had to be something we had access to, for fair comparison's sake.I guarantee you, you would falter on this system. I don't know if you're a goldeneyes, so I won't say you won't be able to tell the difference, but I couldn't. He could (I think), but he's happy with his system, so is willing to compromise. He's a long way off from needing to go high-def. (His only true high-def source is cable -- he doesn't have a player.)Dude, it was three keystrokes. If I'm a badass, I'm a lazyass badass.
Until such a time as I see this system, I'm remaining in disbelief. I've seen far too many examples of the opposite. If nothing else, it's easier to get a better picture for the vast majority using HD formats then. And if we suped up HD with double lines deinterlacing etc, etc, I'm sure it'd still be ahead.

I dunno. If Leno looks better, HD-DVD will make the DVD look broken. Leno and ESPN are not on par with an HD disc. You have me curious now though. What's he got for a system? And why isn't it catching on? Until it does, HD-DVD or BluRay remain more attractive options from my perspective.

[edtyct]

No disrespect to you or your friend, or your sensibilities, but I'm of a different mind. But I also would never deny that viewing standard definition films under the right conditions can be a hugely rewarding experience--even in the HD era--especially those films rendered well, like Nemo. However, any video expert will tell you that animation has an advantage in its filmlike appearance over more demanding kinds of real-world material, but we'll leave that aside. Notwithstanding ties to the industry, and old line doublers, HD is measurably, and visibly, more of a window on the world than SD, except to those who go out of their way to scuttle it, either perceptually or conceptually. Fudging the difference by saying that it's better but "it's not far better" leaves the door wide open to anything and nothing. HD is simply as superior in performance to SD as the particular comparative and personal circumstances allow. I'll say it again: No champion of HD should have a gripe against anyone who is happy with SD in the HD age, however well s/he sets it up. It isn't a moral issue. If you say the gap isn't wide to you, I'm content to leave it at that (eventually, talking about video is a little like dancing about architecture); I, however, find no compelling reason to second the motion. But when the matter enters the realm of rigorous analysis (watching and measuring), apart from financial or other extraneous considerations, SD line-doubled, calibrated, and shown on the best equipment, even at ISF headquarters, is no match for the sharpness of genuine HD on a level playing field. And I'm well aware that SD has seen some absolutely exquisite DVD players (like the Accuphase, which doesn't even bother to offer scaling of its 480p feed). On the right display (not necessarily one costing an arm and a leg), at a proper distance, the eye could well be fooled into thinking that it's viewing HD, but changing the conditions a little could well put a stop to that.

[Dusty Chalk]

Fudging the difference by saying that it's better but "it's not far better" leaves the door wide open to anything and nothing. No it doesn't, it has a very specific meaning. It's meant to contradict those who say things like this:
First of all, those of you who claim that high definition isn't much more resolved than "line doubled" standard definition either haven't seen much high definition (or high definition set up correctly), are watching small displays, are sitting far enough away from displays to make any questions of resolution otiose, or simply don't want it to be....or maybe to reinforce the opinion that yes, high definition isn't much more resolved than line-doubled/upscaled standard definition video. It's a matter of diminishing returns, like the same mastered recording on HDCD vs. redbook CD.

And why isn't it catching on? Because people are stupid.

No, seriously, it is catching on, but in a too-little-too-late fashion. For example, I have heard good things about this upscaler (http://www.lumagen.com/testindex.php?module=hdq_details), but CRTs are going out (his projector is a CRT projector).

[Dusty Chalk]

Until such a time as I see this system, I'm remaining in disbelief. Well that's fine, but don't tell me that if I can't tell the difference, it's the system or the setup.

[edtyct]

I had a feeling that your friend had a CRT projector--the kind that would be most apt to make HD seem less valuable. Line doubling was a CRT phenomenon, when scaling was barely blip on the screen. I used to do it, too. I don't know of anything in video that isn't a matter of diminishing returns. What's worth the effort and/or expense of implementing, incorporating, etc., is often in the pocket and in the eye of the beholder. To me, processed SD doesn't get close enough to HD; to you, it does, with a vengeance. I now know what people like me are called.

I remain,
edtyct aka one of the stupid people

[Dusty Chalk]

Just for the record, I wasn't calling you stupid, I was calling the mass of purchasers who are buying LCDs and allowing CRTs to become a thing of the past stupid.

Unless, of course, you're one of those people.

[GMichael]

Just for the record, I wasn't calling you stupid, I was calling the mass of purchasers who are buying LCDs and allowing CRTs to become a thing of the past stupid.

Unless, of course, you're one of those people.

I went with projectors. Can I be stupid?
But I do love them.

[edtyct]

Let's allow the words that you bring to the table, "stupidity" and "fascism," hang in the air for a while. Truth will out, you know.

[Dusty Chalk]

I went with projectors. Can I be stupid?What kind of projector?

And: You can be anything you want to be, if you put your mind to it.

[Dusty Chalk]

Let's allow the words that you bring to the table, "stupidity" and "fascism," hang in the air for a while. You forgot "crackhead".

Here's another word for you: condescending.

[GMichael]

What kind of projector?

And: You can be anything you want to be, if you put your mind to it.

They are Sanyo Z-4's. They fall into the LCD, 720p/1080i family. I get a nice 106" picture in the living room and a fine 92" in the master bedroom.
Std DVD looks good to me but the films I get at compressed 1080i are better IMO. I let the projectors do the scaling for me. The cable box doesn't seem to do as good a job of it. But Nemo looks d.m good either way.
I can be anything I want? You sound like my mom. Mind over matter. If you don't mind, it doesn't matter.

[PeruvianSkies]

This thread has taken and intresting turn...

I began this thread for a topic of discussion and it has caused two wars already...lol well, let the brawling continue... somehow I am out of the battle this time.

[pixelthis]

Just for the record, I wasn't calling you stupid, I was calling the mass of purchasers who are buying LCDs and allowing CRTs to become a thing of the past stupid.

Unless, of course, you're one of those people.
CRTS are becoming a thing of the past because they are obsolete,
not because the people buying LCDS are "stupid".
CRTS have to have step up voltage, 20,000 to 30,000 volts, a near perfect vaccume, and if a flat screen a HUGE amount of glass in front
to preserve the thing. They take up a lot of space, to some are an eyesore, and last ten years, maybe a little more.
LCDS last 20 years, disapear when you arent watching them (if installed right) and wil soon be so cheap to replace there wont be any point in repairing them.
I loved all of my sony CRTS, the 32 in, etc, and my 60in rear projectors, but after using LCD for just awhile you really notice just how soft the pic is on a crt.
And screen door effect? Which LCDS are you looking at? Old sharp
front projectors?
AND yes, hd will surpass DVD, my point is that the HD wont nessesarily be on a DISC FORMAT

[recoveryone]

Hey Pixel, I have to differ a bit, CRT's are still the standard that all rest others are measured against. Yes they may not be as attractive as a flat screen but the PQ is still unmatched by all other current systems. I see that you have a Vizio just as I do, and all I can say is that my CRT beats the LCD hands down with HD PQ. The LCD handles SD pic a bit better. but with HD broadcast and DVD's the CRT is the champ in my house. The LCD is great with animation, but I don't watch much cartoons anymore.

I just had my CRT tuned up and the first words out of the techs mouth was that CRT are still the best way to go. LCD/plasma are not holding up.

[PeruvianSkies]

Hey Pixel, I have to differ a bit, CRT's are still the standard that all rest others are measured against. Yes they may not be as attractive as a flat screen but the PQ is still unmatched by all other current systems. I see that you have a Vizio just as I do, and all I can say is that my CRT beats the LCD hands down with HD PQ. The LCD handles SD pic a bit better. but with HD broadcast and DVD's the CRT is the champ in my house. The LCD is great with animation, but I don't watch much cartoons anymore.

I just had my CRT tuned up and the first words out of the techs mouth was that CRT are still the best way to go. LCD/plasma are not holding up.

I have yet to see a LCD that can go a few rounds with my 30" Toshiba HDTV CRT.

[Dusty Chalk]

CRTS are becoming a thing of the past because they are obsolete,
not because the people buying LCDS are "stupid".
CRTS have to have step up voltage, 20,000 to 30,000 volts, a near perfect vaccume, and if a flat screen a HUGE amount of glass in front
to preserve the thing. They take up a lot of space, to some are an eyesore, and last ten years, maybe a little more.
LCDS last 20 years, disapear when you arent watching them (if installed right) and wil soon be so cheap to replace there wont be any point in repairing them.
I loved all of my sony CRTS, the 32 in, etc, and my 60in rear projectors, but after using LCD for just awhile you really notice just how soft the pic is on a crt.
And screen door effect? Which LCDS are you looking at? Old sharp
front projectors?
AND yes, hd will surpass DVD, my point is that the HD wont nessesarily be on a DISC FORMATThey still look better. Yes, they will seem soft when you've spent all your time looking at LCD, just as LCD looks ridiculously sharp after spending all my time looking at CRT.

But here's the test -- which one looks more wrong after watching a movie? CRT is more film-like, and that's what I care about the most.

[PeruvianSkies]

They still look better. Yes, they will seem soft when you've spent all your time looking at LCD, just as LCD looks ridiculously sharp after spending all my time looking at CRT.

But here's the test -- which one looks more wrong after watching a movie? CRT is more film-like, and that's what I care about the most.

Absolutely! I am all about the image looking film-like and not digital-esque. I like a sharp image, but I also like a tiny bit of grain as it gives the film it's very natural quality that makes it...well, film. There are often cases where older films are restored and they get a little too crazy with the filters and end up taking away the films character with the slight bit of grain that it needs. LCD's are just a bit too shiny for my taste. Also, they seem to make skintones look plastic and a bit washy. Does anyone else notice this?

[pixelthis]

Absolutely! I am all about the image looking film-like and not digital-esque. I like a sharp image, but I also like a tiny bit of grain as it gives the film it's very natural quality that makes it...well, film. There are often cases where older films are restored and they get a little too crazy with the filters and end up taking away the films character with the slight bit of grain that it needs. LCD's are just a bit too shiny for my taste. Also, they seem to make skintones look plastic and a bit washy. Does anyone else notice this?
NOPE.
Hey peru I really like your system (will post pics of mine as soon as its "cleaned up " a little) but I guarentee ya a properly set up LCD
will beat the pants off of any crt.
I had a samsung 30in, basically your 30in, basically the same 30in directview sold by phillips, tosh, sony, etc with a few modifications,
a fine tv, but a tad too small for my taste.
Coulda had a sony demo 34in(always have liked the pic on sony)
but couldnt get one end of it off the stand, it was MASSIVE.
Sure I would have put up with that but just couldnt see enough of a reason to.
AND a final word about crappy compressed hd over cable, my system is fiber optic, dont know if to neighborhood or pole, but I do know that the picture is amazing, my main love is music but I havent listened to much in the past several months(except over MHD):5:

[musicman1999]

NOPE.
Hey peru I really like your system (will post pics of mine as soon as its "cleaned up " a little) but I guarentee ya a properly set up LCD
will beat the pants off of any crt.
I had a samsung 30in, basically your 30in, basically the same 30in directview sold by phillips, tosh, sony, etc with a few modifications,
a fine tv, but a tad too small for my taste.
Coulda had a sony demo 34in(always have liked the pic on sony)
but couldnt get one end of it off the stand, it was MASSIVE.
Sure I would have put up with that but just couldnt see enough of a reason to.
AND a final word about crappy compressed hd over cable, my system is fiber optic, dont know if to neighborhood or pole, but I do know that the picture is amazing, my main love is music but I havent listened to much in the past several months(except over MHD):5:

If you prefer LCD then good for you,but it is obvious from previous posters that you are in the minority.The only LCD's that will be in my home are attached to my computer.CRT is still the format of choice for me.Much better black levels,more film like picture and much better for long term viewing.I find that LCD prices are going down many are getting worse,quality wise.I was recently in Walmart and saw a 37 inch LCD that had an awful picture.

bill

[pixelthis]

If you prefer LCD then good for you,but it is obvious from previous posters that you are in the minority.The only LCD's that will be in my home are attached to my computer.CRT is still the format of choice for me.Much better black levels,more film like picture and much better for long term viewing.I find that LCD prices are going down many are getting worse,quality wise.I was recently in Walmart and saw a 37 inch LCD that had an awful picture.

bill
Well, enjoy as long as you can get one, which wont be too much longer.
BTY crts degrade over time, you gradually have to turn the brightness up to see them, you dont notice the worsening picture because of the "boiling frog" effect, then one day you notice that everybodies
tv is so much better looking than yours.
A CRT isnt worth a crappola for a high quality display after five years.
AND nothing at wallmart looks any good, or sams, or circuit, etc,
what do you expect? Setup involves plugging it in and turning it on, usually by a highschool dropout, and then you watch it under about a thousand florescent lights
About the only set I've seen (crt) is a lowes, god, what an amazing pic, that would be worth the trouble (and the hum from the high voltage section):cornut:

[GMichael]

When are the 3D hollodecks coming out? Anything else is just flat.

[PeruvianSkies]

Well, enjoy as long as you can get one, which wont be too much longer.
BTY crts degrade over time, you gradually have to turn the brightness up to see them, you dont notice the worsening picture because of the "boiling frog" effect, then one day you notice that everybodies
tv is so much better looking than yours.
A CRT isnt worth a crappola for a high quality display after five years.
AND nothing at wallmart looks any good, or sams, or circuit, etc,
what do you expect? Setup involves plugging it in and turning it on, usually by a highschool dropout, and then you watch it under about a thousand florescent lights
About the only set I've seen (crt) is a lowes, god, what an amazing pic, that would be worth the trouble (and the hum from the high voltage section):cornut:

Let's say my CRT needs replaced every 5 years...ok, no big deal. I can buy 4 of them for about the price of a good LCD. So I have no problems replacing the TV every 5 years because I am still saving money over the LCD and getting a better picture as well.

[recoveryone]

Well, enjoy as long as you can get one, which wont be too much longer.
BTY crts degrade over time, you gradually have to turn the brightness up to see them, you dont notice the worsening picture because of the "boiling frog" effect, then one day you notice that everybodies
tv is so much better looking than yours.
A CRT isnt worth a crappola for a high quality display after five years.
AND nothing at wallmart looks any good, or sams, or circuit, etc,
what do you expect? Setup involves plugging it in and turning it on, usually by a highschool dropout, and then you watch it under about a thousand florescent lights
About the only set I've seen (crt) is a lowes, god, what an amazing pic, that would be worth the trouble (and the hum from the high voltage section):cornut:

Well Pixel we all have said how much you are entitle to your opinion, but you are disreguarding the pro's/experts in the field (not on this board) that still stand by the level of PQ that a CRT gives even after 5+ years. Every display device is subject to setup configuration and source feed into the display. But as the pro's do their testing with the same setup on each display the CRT still is the clear winner. Now I read your post on how your Vizio is connected digitally (HDMI, I guess), question is how was your old CRT connected? If you are trying to compare your LCD vs. your old CRT and they are not connected the same then your talking apples and Oranges. Both of my system are connected the same (so there is no advantage to either) I use the same DVD player on both, same cable box. Both displays where setup with Essential DVD disk, so with that in mind I can say with a complete fairness of both units that my CRT is better in displaying HD content and DVD's than the LCD. And this softness issue I read some of you speak of on CRT's, I have none in HD viewing and that is why I said earlier that the LCD does a better job with SD broadcasting. Now with that all said you can have your own perference, but don't state that the pro's/experts have changed their minds or were wrong in their testing of all of these devices ( and I'm not talking about Consumer Reports). And heres a bit of knowledge for you: The guts of a CRT weighs only about 50lbs, due to the heat of the lenses and other parts is why the cabinet is so big, to keep things cool. And to cover your opinion of longivety, how can you even compare, CRT have been around for over 60 years and LCD's? maybe 8 and they didn't have a good start. T.V.s are like any other machine, if you take care of it, it will take care of you. So if you are losing PQ only after 5 years I can bet that the uit was not setup properly (contrast too high= burn out) which is the way most units come from the factory even LCD's. My old RCA Color Trak 27" console is still going strong at my borther-n-laws going on 16 years of flawless service. I just got rid of my first 19" GE at a yard sale that was 23 years old. So when you say CRT's are wrothless after 5 years please bring some facts.:confused5:

[Dusty Chalk]

BTY crts degrade over time, you gradually have to turn the brightness up to see them, you dont notice the worsening picture because of the "boiling frog" effect...You keep making these idiotic sweeping statements, and wonder why we keep disagreeing with you. I mean, there are probably people who are fans of LCD saying to themselves, "I really should watch my LCD less, it obviously kills brain cells based on this guy".

There's a brightness control -- it's exactly for this. Anyone who has an eye for video knows that you need to adjust your set once in a while. Just like synthesizers need tuning after they warm up and vintage amplifiers need recapping every couple decades or so.

Your criteria for it being a superior technology is different from mine -- I have one: does it look better? You keep citing other criteria, and some of them are true, but you say them to such extremes that you make yourself out to be a liar or an exaggerator in the minds of those who know the facts.

[Mr Peabody]

II have also had excellent life span from CRT's. I had a 19" I bought in the 80's that lasted some where between 15 and 20 years. I bought a Pioneer RPTV that I used and then sold to a family member and it's at least 10 years old. I have a LCD 26" Sharp and to me the colors are softer than either my Sony CRT or Toshiba DLP but all of these are in different rooms and different manufacturers. LCD has a clear advantage in saving space but unless it comes down in price to near CRT levels there will always be a need for the cheaper alternative. My personal favorite our of the 3 for picture, SD or HD, is the Sony tube. All of them have great HD pictures but I just haven't seen anything I preferred, or thought was better than my Sony. Of course, the Sony is only 2 to 3 years old and has already been repaired once, this I found troubling, but it's not the technology, it's the QC.

[pixelthis]

II have also had excellent life span from CRT's. I had a 19" I bought in the 80's that lasted some where between 15 and 20 years. I bought a Pioneer RPTV that I used and then sold to a family member and it's at least 10 years old. I have a LCD 26" Sharp and to me the colors are softer than either my Sony CRT or Toshiba DLP but all of these are in different rooms and different manufacturers. LCD has a clear advantage in saving space but unless it comes down in price to near CRT levels there will always be a need for the cheaper alternative. My personal favorite our of the 3 for picture, SD or HD, is the Sony tube. All of them have great HD pictures but I just haven't seen anything I preferred, or thought was better than my Sony. Of course, the Sony is only 2 to 3 years old and has already been repaired once, this I found troubling, but it's not the technology, it's the QC.
Well, I hope your CRTS last a long time, because in a few years they wont be making them anymore.
AND after people live with the sound of color wheels, and color smearing, and replacing a 300$ light bulb every few years, I doubt
the market for either DLP or LCOS is going to be zooming, if they're still around, that is

[recoveryone]

Face it Pixel, you are on the losing end of this debate and it will not change until someone makes a display that is equal to the PQ of a CRT, At first plasmas was to be the new champ or DLP but both had their own short comings, but LCD was never a contender to CRT

[edtyct]

Well, a successor to CRT has emerged. Raymond Soneira of DisplayMate has supervised a series of display-technology shootouts over the last few years, the most recent involving LCoS rear-projection TVs. It was published in its entirety in Widescreen Review (Parts A through D) and is available over the web (extremetech.com). It is an excellent model of how to compare various displays scientifically and an excellent introduction to the variables involved.

I've extracted a few passages from Parts C and D to illustrate the findings, which are far more complicated than the quotations below might lead you to believe. I've included no information about LCD, plasma, or DLP, though it is all interesting. On the matter of CRT's dominance, Soneira writes, "Fifteen years ago the CRT had a virtual monopoly for displays used in televisions and computers. Today we have half a dozen competing display technologies. In spite of all this competition, the CRT has managed to hold onto its crown title as the reference standard against which all of the other display technologies are measured. There are two reasons for this: Each new technology had to mimic the dominant CRT in order to be accepted in the marketplace; and second, the image and picture quality delivered by the best CRTs was simply outstanding and untouchable by any of the new technologies. Virtually all professionally produced content is still produced and optimized on CRT monitors. So, while all of the other technologies have been quite successful at chipping away at the CRT's total market share, it has managed to hold on to the very top-end of the market and continue on as the reference standard for image and picture quality. But its lead has been steadily slipping; we'll review its current status here."

"Gamma-curve transfer function indicates how accurately displays follow the ideal power-law gamma of 2.20 via drive electronics and calibration. LCoS is the best, because all 256 signal levels are measured and adjusted to match the ideal relation. Other technologies lack this detailed calibration or are pushed for peak brightness instead of gray-scale accuracy. Modern CRTs require some signal processing to deliver the ideal gamma." This is an important point, since CRTs were often cited for their superiority in ramping from black to white without artifacts when the digital displays started hitting the market. LCD generally doesn't perform so well in this context; plasma has power issues that limit its ability to hold contrast (though the newer Panasonics and Pioneers might have alleviated them); and DLP's pulse width modulation creates dithering artifacts. Pulse width modulation doesn't appear to create the same ill effects when used on consumer LCoS displays (the studio version cited below uses voltage regulation instead for even better accuracy).

"In terms of image and picture quality, color and gray-scale accuracy, pixel-to-pixel sharpness, and freedom from artifacts, JVC Professional's 48-inch LCoS Reference Monitor (DLA-HRM1, $45K) with true 1920×1080 resolution easily outperforms Sony's flagship BVM 32-inch Professional CRT monitors (BVM-D32E1WU or BVM-A32E1WU, $42K plus plug-ins [the virtual professional standards]). The darker black level generated by the CRT is not an advantage in a studio, because they intentionally use a low (but not completely dark) level of ambient lighting for production work. The difference between the extremely dark black of a CRT and the very dark black of an LCoS monitor is not visually apparent. So the days of the CRT as the operational Reference Standard are over." You might also be interested to know also that Sir Terrence's TV studio replaced all of its CRT monitors with not LCoS but LCDs.

Although the JVC LCoS that won the shootout cost many more thousands of dollars than any consumer model ever will, accounting for much of its advantage, a couple of the consumer models/prototypes in the shootout--except for, ironically, JVC's own representative--made excellent showings. And consumer LCoS models have certainly become better since the shootout (as have LCDs, plasmas, and DLPs), though pro-calibre performance will presumably always evade them. But CRT consumer sets don't approach CRT professional units either, so the comparison between the two technologies is sound.

I've unavoidably clipped a great deal of Soneira's observations and conclusions. A complete reading might be rewarding for some people.

[Dusty Chalk]

Part A (http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1917485,00.asp)
Part B (http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1923419,00.asp)
Part C (http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1927503,00.asp)
Part D (http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1930454,00.asp)

...for those who would like direct links. (Thanks for the tip, will read offline.)

[recoveryone]

I tell you Ed, this is why we keep you around, but I do miss old Terence. I hope Mr Pixel takes a good look at your posting.

[pixelthis]

I tell you Ed, this is why we keep you around, but I do miss old Terence. I hope Mr Pixel takes a good look at your posting.
I read the post, and its interesting if you can afford 45,000
for a television.
DO you know what type of tech you can get for that price?
(not to mention a BMW hardtop convertible)
The difference between this "super" display and a regular of any type is small, a lot of people wouldnt notice, really.
Dont get me wrong, demos like this help advance the art, and might actually pay off for everyman in a decade or so.
BUT right now they are more an intellectual excercise than anything else:sleep:

[edtyct]

They may be intellectual exercises to you, but they are in fact directly on point. These close studies demonstrate what the various technologies are capable of achieving vis a vis the standard of CRT. Not all of the displays in the various shootouts were models marketed for professional studios. The pro monitors are the most expensive and the most finished because they cut absolutely no corners; they have to be as reliable and steady as possible. Rather than being indistinguishable from consumer models, they might be even less appealing than consumer models; they tend to look too dark to most people. In case you haven't noticed, brightness, as well as edge enhancement, tend to be attractive to consumers--not so to pros. But if you're right that people wouldn't notice the difference, then these tests are certainly not the idle intellectual exercises that you propose; they make meaningful, educational comparisons that might just influence some buying decisions for the better. Furthermore, today's $45,000 display is tomorrow's $6,000 display. Check out the fall in prices for LCoS consumer sets/projectors--as well as that for plasma, for example, over the years. Why you think that somehow your aggressive favoring of a single technology, in the face of all sorts of resistance (some of it valid and some of it not), is somehow less worthy of a yawn than actual measurement and scrutiny by experts in the field is totally beyond me. And I do not happen to think, as others do, that LCD is the scourge of the earth or that anyone who watches anything but CRT is morally bankrupt or stupid. Maybe, for you, this discussion isn't about exchanging facts and personal preferences but an attempt to force everyone to share your preferences.

[Mr Peabody]

I heard the other day that Nintendo, I forget which system, is out selling PS3 and the X-box by a wide margin. This reminded me of this thread and I had to wonder how many gamers even think about HD movies when they buy a console. And, do those who buy PS3 buy enough Blu-ray to make an impact. I know this has been kicked like a dead horse but I was really surprised to hear that Nintendo is the best selling game console and to my knowledge it doesn't play movies. It just made me wonder if the PS3 angle was over blown. I believe I was listening to BBC news when I heard the story, I'll have to try and hunt the story down for more details. Please jump in if you know which Nintendo system and confirm it doesn't play any movies.

[pixelthis]

They may be intellectual exercises to you, but they are in fact directly on point. These close studies demonstrate what the various technologies are capable of achieving vis a vis the standard of CRT. Not all of the displays in the various shootouts were models marketed for professional studios. The pro monitors are the most expensive and the most finished because they cut absolutely no corners; they have to be as reliable and steady as possible. Rather than being indistinguishable from consumer models, they might be even less appealing than consumer models; they tend to look too dark to most people. In case you haven't noticed, brightness, as well as edge enhancement, tend to be attractive to consumers--not so to pros. But if you're right that people wouldn't notice the difference, then these tests are certainly not the idle intellectual exercises that you propose; they make meaningful, educational comparisons that might just influence some buying decisions for the better. Furthermore, today's $45,000 display is tomorrow's $6,000 display. Check out the fall in prices for LCoS consumer sets/projectors--as well as that for plasma, for example, over the years. Why you think that somehow your aggressive favoring of a single technology, in the face of all sorts of resistance (some of it valid and some of it not), is somehow less worthy of a yawn than actual measurement and scrutiny by experts in the field is totally beyond me. And I do not happen to think, as others do, that LCD is the scourge of the earth or that anyone who watches anything but CRT is morally bankrupt or stupid. Maybe, for you, this discussion isn't about exchanging facts and personal preferences but an attempt to force everyone to share your preferences.

Making my "preferences " known doesnt mean i WANT EVERYBODY TO SHARE THEM NESSESARILY, just make them known.
And your 45,000 dollar toy just got blown out of the water by a 3500$ sony, btw.
The new 1080p sonys are stunning, jaw dropping, you name it.
This is REAL resolution, and the layman who was with me also noticed how this set stood out from the others.
Cant remember the size, but this paticular model was 2295 or so.
And dont be so condescending to "everyman"
Most HAVE to have a brighter set, because in real world conditions
the kids are doing their home work, people dont want to eat in the dark, etc.
Thats one thing thats so great about LCD, no glare to speak of.
Buying a set for its picture quality alone is something few can afford,
there are a lot of compromises.
Does the wife like it?
Whats its real world durability?
Will the price keep me from buying other toys and luxeries(like food)
The great picture on a rear projection set wont look so good with a lamp washing it out, or with a six year old sticking a fork in it.
Attila the hun killed everybody in a village taller than a wheel axel.
Youi have to be taller than an axel to get to a set mounted on a wall
All I am saying is that LCD wil be the future, like it or not.
Are they perfect? Not by a long shot, but they are what the public is choosing, so better to concentrate our energies on improving the breed
while the form factor is young, because once its matured we'll be stuck with it, mostly

[edtyct]

And dont be so condescending to "everyman"


Rhetoric doesn't improve your arguments. I'm not condescending to "everyman." I'm just as much one of the crowd as you are. Like everyone else in the crowd, however, I happen to be informed about some things and ignorant about others. I keep reading aggressive opinions from you about LCD that many others don't appear to share, for valid reasons, but you still treat them as universals. So you appear to have a different agenda than I do. I don't happen to agree that people or companies with preferences and ideas different from yours are "stupid" (or any other perjorative term), though I'm more than happy to give your likes and dislikes their due. I've been impressed by more than a couple of LCDs, and I've seen many a CRT that has left me cold (though I don't see LCD eventually taking over the world on technological or economic grounds). But sometimes you, like me, can be simply wrong about a verifiable fact. Certain displays do certain things well, and certain displays tend not to do those things well. This is supposed to be an A/V enthusiasts' site, not just an apology for how nonenthusiasts spend their cash. You've been all over the map with your praise for LCDs: First they were better; now they're more popular. And so it goes. You are more than welcome to hold the floor if you want as long as you can get a response. I think that I've made every technical point that seems relevant to me about LCD's strengths and weaknesses relative to those of other display technologies.

[recoveryone]

And with that we can all say goodnight to this debate

[pixelthis]

Rhetoric doesn't improve your arguments. I'm not condescending to "everyman." I'm just as much one of the crowd as you are. Like everyone else in the crowd, however, I happen to be informed about some things and ignorant about others. I keep reading aggressive opinions from you about LCD that many others don't appear to share, for valid reasons, but you still treat them as universals. So you appear to have a different agenda than I do. I don't happen to agree that people or companies with preferences and ideas different from yours are "stupid" (or any other perjorative term), though I'm more than happy to give your likes and dislikes their due. I've been impressed by more than a couple of LCDs, and I've seen many a CRT that has left me cold (though I don't see LCD eventually taking over the world on technological or economic grounds). But sometimes you, like me, can be simply wrong about a verifiable fact. Certain displays do certain things well, and certain displays tend not to do those things well. This is supposed to be an A/V enthusiasts' site, not just an apology for how nonenthusiasts spend their cash. You've been all over the map with your praise for LCDs: First they were better; now they're more popular. And so it goes. You are more than welcome to hold the floor if you want as long as you can get a response. I think that I've made every technical point that seems relevant to me about LCD's strengths and weaknesses relative to those of other display technologies.
Check out the new 1080p flat panels from sony, if you cant afford it vizio has just come out with a 46 incher 1080 PROGRESSIVE
for 1700 bucks.
Trust me, if these new panels dont convince you of the possibilites
of LCDS than you cant be convinced.
Is the sony worth 2000 grand for its geegaws?
For some, no, but regardless its a great time to be a poor AV enthusiast:5:

[recoveryone]

I was being nice above, but if you want to be stuck on stupid be our guess. we have presented to you the facts from varies sources to disprove your original claim of LCD's having better PQ. and you have jumped all around that point to try to convince yourself that due to the mass appeal of LCD's that it is the reason it is better. Nobody here every claim that LCD's were less convenient than CRT or did anyone state that the CRT would out live the LCD. Here we just like to keep the facts straight your preference is all up to you and yes there will be better LCD's coming out that will improve the PQ of it, but the technology of LCD was never made to surpass CRT and that is why CRT is still the standard that all other displays are compared to. If there was a better (In mass production) display that surpass CRT then it would be the new standard to meet. Is there one on the way? I would hope so, but until then please, I really mean this please don't quote your preferences as facts. We would be incline to support you if you would have just said a simple line "In My Humble Opinion" (IMHO).

[pixelthis]

I was being nice above, but if you want to be stuck on stupid be our guess. we have presented to you the facts from varies sources to disprove your original claim of LCD's having better PQ. and you have jumped all around that point to try to convince yourself that due to the mass appeal of LCD's that it is the reason it is better. Nobody here every claim that LCD's were less convenient than CRT or did anyone state that the CRT would out live the LCD. Here we just like to keep the facts straight your preference is all up to you and yes there will be better LCD's coming out that will improve the PQ of it, but the technology of LCD was never made to surpass CRT and that is why CRT is still the standard that all other displays are compared to. If there was a better (In mass production) display that surpass CRT then it would be the new standard to meet. Is there one on the way? I would hope so, but until then please, I really mean this please don't quote your preferences as facts. We would be incline to support you if you would have just said a simple line "In My Humble Opinion" (IMHO).
What do you know about being "humble"?
I have been around CRTS all of my life and am well aquainted with both their strenghts and weaknesses, and I have NEVER seen a commercial model capable of 1080p.
A few short years ago the best rez a set could deliver was at best 800
lines, and those were expensive. No one thought or even dreamed
that a set with 2 million pixels would be available in the near future,
mainly because a CRT with that kind of quality was commercially impossible.
Well, engineering sleight of hand (like all things DLP ) made "dithered"
1080p possible, and now increasing tech and economies of scale have made it possible on a much more stable platform.
These sets now coming out embarass even the best CRTS in all respects, I dont have to argue the case, my proof is showing up on the shelves of stores across the country as I post this.
So like the audiophiles of past years insisting that a turmtable was better than a CD in spite of all evidence you are basically reduced to chanting this PQ mantra of yours like it will deliver you from evil or something, still idiotically claiming that a 1080i picture, with all of the interlace artifacts and at best 800 lines of rezolution (when nothings moving!!!) is better than a picture with 2 million pixels, real resolution that doesnt disapear when something moves, and has no discernible pixel structure, unlike the 34in sony crt I saw the other day.
The truth is that you are stubborn, and are ignoring the most important thing, the one thing I do agree with you on, and thats picture quality.
These new 1080p LCDS are every bit as nice in picture as anything on the market, better in some respects, any objective person could see that.
I guess that, like in the audio world where snobs will turn up their noses at CD's, in the video world they will turn up their noses at LCDS.
thats fine, just keep squinting at you tiny crt screen, or your RPT
that looks like the box the UN building came in, I am going to enjoy the best picture thats around, as soon as the popcorns ready:ihih:

[edtyct]

What's the 800 lines? CRTs have been capable of 1080 interlaced vertical lines for quite some time; this represents genuine resolution--two fields of 540 presented in rapid succession to fool the eye, as yours was fooled before fixed-pixel technology existed. The 800 lines that you mention was the approximate horizontal count for a direct-view CRT, until the Sony XBRs upped it to around 1300. Loss of resolution during movement has always been more of an inherent problem with HD images on an LCD screen than on a CRT, since LCD picture elements don't necessarily refresh quickly enough to catch motion on the fly. Loss of resolution during movement (camera panning included) is also an artifact of standard-definition signal processing on digital HD panels, like LCDs, directly because of their progressive nature and their intrinsic bias toward HD resolutions. Witness the phenomenon of "breathing" or "pumping" in processing.

You treat 1080p as if it's the be-all-end-all of image display. It isn't. It's certainly nice to eliminate interlacing and to increase pixel count, but the variables that enter into the PQ of a particular display or display technology far exceed the matter of its total pixels. Again, this isn't a controversial point. I could show you an outstanding 720p display that you wouldn't be able to tell from a 1080p display under common conditions. In fact, you might well like it better--under blind test conditions, that is--precisely because it handles color, processing, gamma, and black level with more finesse. Advertising hype and buzz is rarely the whole story in the real world. It can be kind of . . . what's word? . . . superficial.

You're right that you don't have to argue your case (which, I assume, is that LCDs are the most popular choice because they make better pictures than the competition). First, no argument is possible on your grounds; you live completely in a world of opinion, not fact. Now, of course, someone might responsibly announce a preference for a Sony LCD panel over, say, a Samsung LED-based DLP because he or she likes the feature set, or someone else might choose the Samsung over the Sony because its colors are more accurate. But you don't get your hands dirty with this kind of analysis. You traffic in absolutes and blanket statements, simply accepting what you see on store shelves as evidence of your own presuppositions and happily ignoring the details. It's clear that you have no technical understanding of why many professionals and enthusisasts retain a soft spot for the picture on a CRT. Because of your own incorrigible subjectivity, you're ill-equipped to attribute alternative views to anything but nostalgia or sheer "idiocy." Everyone else is deluded, but never you. How could anyone not prefer those flat, cute LCDs with their larger than life color palettes and cool-looking designs? Well, if you paid attention, you'd notice that some people actually explain why. Your need to be right prevents you from looking more deeply.

I'm sorry to tell you, but all display technology is based on sleight of hand. It's all an attempt to create a willing suspension of disbelief through deception. People may be affected differently by the different strategies because of their conscious and unconscious values, but meters and other objective measurement strategies exist to determine whether particular displays meet objective criteria for competent image creation. LCDs are subject to them as much as anything else, and none of them excels in every relevant respect; in fact, no TV does (pro monitors come closest, though they might not be right for every consumer's environment).

[recoveryone]

Once again you read only the headlines and misinterpet the post. I was giving you advice and agreeing with some of your other points about LCD's. But all you saw was my point about PQ which the standards of the industry backs me up and not whats stocking the shevles at BB. Remember I too have a LCD, (same brand as you, Vizio) so I do get to see the pluses and minuses of both displays. Ed put it best, don't get all butt hurt if your point is not factual and just your opinion. We all here have different opinions base on personal experience or industry standards. But the key is we state that its our opinion and not the next coming of Christ!

[Rich-n-Texas]

Such an important acronym "IMHO" is.

[PeruvianSkies]

Once again you read only the headlines and misinterpet the post. I was giving you advice and agreeing with some of your other points about LCD's. But all you saw was my point about PQ which the standards of the industry backs me up and not whats stocking the shevles at BB. Remember I too have a LCD, (same brand as you, Vizio) so I do get to see the pluses and minuses of both displays. Ed put it best, don't get all butt hurt if your point is not factual and just your opinion. We all here have different opinions base on personal experience or industry standards. But the key is we state that its our opinion and not the next coming of Christ!

Yeah! And...when the next coming of Christ happens it all won't matter anyway.

[pixelthis]

What's the 800 lines? CRTs have been capable of 1080 interlaced vertical lines for quite some time; this represents genuine resolution--two fields of 540 presented in rapid succession to fool the eye, as yours was fooled before fixed-pixel technology existed. The 800 lines that you mention was the approximate horizontal count for a direct-view CRT, until the Sony XBRs upped it to around 1300. Loss of resolution during movement has always been more of an inherent problem with HD images on an LCD screen than on a CRT, since LCD picture elements don't necessarily refresh quickly enough to catch motion on the fly. Loss of resolution during movement (camera panning included) is also an artifact of standard-definition signal processing on digital HD panels, like LCDs, directly because of their progressive nature and their intrinsic bias toward HD resolutions. Witness the phenomenon of "breathing" or "pumping" in processing.

You treat 1080p as if it's the be-all-end-all of image display. It isn't. It's certainly nice to eliminate interlacing and to increase pixel count, but the variables that enter into the PQ of a particular display or display technology far exceed the matter of its total pixels. Again, this isn't a controversial point. I could show you an outstanding 720p display that you wouldn't be able to tell from a 1080p display under common conditions. In fact, you might well like it better--under blind test conditions, that is--precisely because it handles color, processing, gamma, and black level with more finesse. Advertising hype and buzz is rarely the whole story in the real world. It can be kind of . . . what's word? . . . superficial.

You're right that you don't have to argue your case (which, I assume, is that LCDs are the most popular choice because they make better pictures than the competition). First, no argument is possible on your grounds; you live completely in a world of opinion, not fact. Now, of course, someone might responsibly announce a preference for a Sony LCD panel over, say, a Samsung LED-based DLP because he or she likes the feature set, or someone else might choose the Samsung over the Sony because its colors are more accurate. But you don't get your hands dirty with this kind of analysis. You traffic in absolutes and blanket statements, simply accepting what you see on store shelves as evidence of your own presuppositions and happily ignoring the details. It's clear that you have no technical understanding of why many professionals and enthusisasts retain a soft spot for the picture on a CRT. Because of your own incorrigible subjectivity, you're ill-equipped to attribute alternative views to anything but nostalgia or sheer "idiocy." Everyone else is deluded, but never you. How could anyone not prefer those flat, cute LCDs with their larger than life color palettes and cool-looking designs? Well, if you paid attention, you'd notice that some people actually explain why. Your need to be right prevents you from looking more deeply.

I'm sorry to tell you, but all display technology is based on sleight of hand. It's all an attempt to create a willing suspension of disbelief through deception. People may be affected differently by the different strategies because of their conscious and unconscious values, but meters and other objective measurement strategies exist to determine whether particular displays meet objective criteria for competent image creation. LCDs are subject to them as much as anything else, and none of them excels in every relevant respect; in fact, no TV does (pro monitors come closest, though they might not be right for every consumer's environment).

THANKS for proving my point, that you dont know what you're talking about.
1080i (interlaced) or interlaced anything for that matter doesnt represent 1080 lines of true resolution.
As long as theres no movement in an interlaced picture you get full resolution, but you dont get something for nothing, as soon as theres a movement the pictures resolution
drops, as much as by half.
This is a major advantage of progressive scan, and why some claimed early HDTVS werent much different than DVDS, they werent.
Some had resolution as low as 600 lines, an improvement over the ntsc average of around 300 or so but not much different than dvds 400 progressive.
This is why most experts in the industry, from joe kane on down, came out in favor of 720p, because they knew that real world resolution was better than 1080i.
1080p, requiring over two million pixels, was seen as years down the road.
AND its not the "end all be all", I NEVER said it was, nope, there is no absolute "best"
but 2000p is a nice target to shoot for, a target, like 1080p, that you'll never get with a CRT.
For one thing no ones trying, why invest in a dying techology?
But LCDS, its really just a matter of engineering, cramming that many pixels on a panel.
Kinda like the slight blurring you get sometimes, I have seen it maybe twice on my set.
It too is a matter of engineering, raw processing power, Although at 8ms its really not that much of a problem anymore.
And lcds werent really meant as a replacement for crts? HA!
ANYTHING was meant as a replacement for crts, the industry has been trying to replace them for years, promising solid state flat panels "right around the corner"
They are bulky, have a unpredictable aging process, prone to burn-in, expensive, power consuming, and, until they solved the problem, would every once in awhile explode.
Or rather implode.
And you will NEVER get one bigger than 34inches
I guess your condescending attitude is what gets me, you talk a lot of stuff that has no real world signifigance, you say picture quality is all, a good 720p can look as good as a bad 1080p? Go down to the store and use your eyes instead of your mouth, myself and a knownothing layman saw a 768 lcd playing a blu ray disc, and a 1080p playing some junk off of basic cable, and we BOTH had our socks blowed off by the 1080p
I gues another thing that bothers me is your cavalier atituide toward what is a fundamental advance in the art, 2 millon pixels on a display
Wheather sxrd, dlp or lcd direct view, this is a major advance, the other stuff is just minor engineering details.
I have been living with CRTS for 5 decades , the last five years with RPTVS,
I know whats better, if you like CRTS, fine, but better enjoy them now, because you wont be able to find one in a few years
And maybe if you had lived with these cantankerous beasts as long as I have you would'nt be holding on so dearly to them

[edtyct]

Yes, the industry expressed significant preference for 720p over 1080i on the issue of movement, as did other private and government applications. It's the reason why a few broadcast stations, like ESPN, chose 720p over 1080i for their hi def feeds (in general, it didn't matter; most receiving units in the home or in the providers' electronics converted 720p to 1080i, anyway). You can make as much hay out of that as you like. But outside of this difference between 720p and 1080i, if you can see it, progressive 720p displays have inherent difficulties with scaling and deinterlacing that can be even more disruptive to resolution, as I mentioned earlier. Why don't these facts mean anything to you? Are you listening or just reacting? The fact is that the CRT has delivered the image standard that all other technologies have to at least approximate. The entire broadcast industry is built on a platform based on what CRTs could do. Decisions made about how professionals were to treat color, black/white, and gamma derived directly from the strengths and weaknesses of CRT, and they are still in operation. If you'd listened, you'd have known that I have not been pushing CRT as the technology that everyone should hold and cherish at the expense of everything else. I have simply been underlining the fact that CRT represents the PQ gold standard and that LCD, as well as other technologies, have had trouble meeting it (I've even been attacked for not showing the proper respect for CRT). If it's condescending to discuss picture quality and viewing conditions at a video enthusiasts' site, so be it. But why isn't it condescending to say that those of us who don't agree with everything that you say, or who simply give due credit to technologies other than LCD, are idiots and know-nothings? That's not a particularly warm and fuzzy way to treat the unenlightened.

I see no reason to recant anything that I said before about relative resolutions, store displays, or CRT's benchmark PQ. And it is odd that you bring up Joe Kane as your ally. Kane is a huge advocate of leaving the interlaced world behind and for good reasons. But Joe Kane, as a consummate professional, has no reservations about CRT's traditional place in the video world, I'll bring this closer to home. Most people at this site, let alone in this discussion, know Terrence as a former moderator and a knowledgable A/V guy, who, not so incidentally, works in the broadcast industry. When Terrence was in the market for a TV, Joe Kane told him personally and directly to buy a Toshiba RP CRT, a 1080i model. He might have recommended any number of progressive panels or microdisplays, but he didn't.

By the way, if you think you have seniority on me, or superior acquaintance with, or knowledge of, CRTs, you may be mistaken. Aside from the ones that I've either owned or tinkered with during the last 50 + years, since 2000, I've owned two Toshiba RP CRTs, which I loved, and a Sony 34" CRT, which had terrific PQ (with certain flaws that I won't mention here) but ultimately proved too small and too bulky for my purposes. During this time, I've also owned a plasma, an LCD microdisplay, a Sharp LCD panel, and an LCoS microdisplay--all of them in the real world. Given my values, the LCoS is the champ.

[pixelthis]

Yes, the industry expressed significant preference for 720p over 1080i on the issue of movement, as did other private and government applications. It's the reason why a few broadcast stations, like ESPN, chose 720p over 1080i for their hi def feeds (in general, it didn't matter; most receiving units in the home or in the providers' electronics converted 720p to 1080i, anyway). You can make as much hay out of that as you like. But outside of this difference between 720p and 1080i, if you can see it, progressive 720p displays have inherent difficulties with scaling and deinterlacing that can be even more disruptive to resolution, as I mentioned earlier. Why don't these facts mean anything to you? Are you listening or just reacting? The fact is that the CRT has delivered the image standard that all other technologies have to at least approximate. The entire broadcast industry is built on a platform based on what CRTs could do. Decisions made about how professionals were to treat color, black/white, and gamma derived directly from the strengths and weaknesses of CRT, and they are still in operation. If you'd listened, you'd have known that I have not been pushing CRT as the technology that everyone should hold and cherish at the expense of everything else. I have simply been underlining the fact that CRT represents the PQ gold standard and that LCD, as well as other technologies, have had trouble meeting it (I've even been attacked for not showing the proper respect for CRT). If it's condescending to discuss picture quality and viewing conditions at a video enthusiasts' site, so be it. But why isn't it condescending to say that those of us who don't agree with everything that you say, or who simply give due credit to technologies other than LCD, are idiots and know-nothings? That's not a particularly warm and fuzzy way to treat the unenlightened.

I see no reason to recant anything that I said before about relative resolutions, store displays, or CRT's benchmark PQ. And it is odd that you bring up Joe Kane as your ally. Kane is a huge advocate of leaving the interlaced world behind and for good reasons. But Joe Kane, as a consummate professional, has no reservations about CRT's traditional place in the video world, I'll bring this closer to home. Most people at this site, let alone in this discussion, know Terrence as a former moderator and a knowledgable A/V guy, who, not so incidentally, works in the broadcast industry. When Terrence was in the market for a TV, Joe Kane told him personally and directly to buy a Toshiba RP CRT, a 1080i model. He might have recommended any number of progressive panels or microdisplays, but he didn't.

By the way, if you think you have seniority on me, or superior acquaintance with, or knowledge of, CRTs, you may be mistaken. Aside from the ones that I've either owned or tinkered with during the last 50 + years, since 2000, I've owned two Toshiba RP CRTs, which I loved, and a Sony 34" CRT, which had terrific PQ (with certain flaws that I won't mention here) but ultimately proved too small and too bulky for my purposes. During this time, I've also owned a plasma, an LCD microdisplay, a Sharp LCD panel, and an LCoS microdisplay--all of them in the real world. Given my values, the LCoS is the champ.
I never said you were a "know nothing" just that you didnt know what you were talking about. Not your fault really, you just have had the common sense "learned" out of you.
CRTS have never been the "standard", film has. TV'S have tried to emulate film, right down to the 4by9 layout since they came out.
And a lot of the "quality" of a crt is just your imagination, really, as it is anybodys.
I have lost the scary movies I used to watch as a kid, viewing them as an adult is a comical experience. I have watched CRTS all of my life and was amazed when, after a
hiatus of HD crt picture watching just what a crt looked like.
Soft and fuzzy, a visible pixel structure all sorts of artifacts
Heres the thing, CRTS have been around since the 30's, people have been trying to find a replacement for a reason, after aLL THIS time they still have major limitations, the fact that they arent any better than they are is a testament to those limitations.
Heres the one thing I want you TO admit, life is a series of tradeoffs, there are tradeoffs
to crts, JUST AS LCDS, DLPS, ETC.
The point is that in real world functionality and, yes, picture quality, just about anything beats a crt these days.
The only real advantage left to CRT is black level, and adaptive backlighting and an ajustable backlight among others will negate that.
When I watch stuff like 24 I turn the backlight down no problem, increases black level detail a great deal.
IF you refuse to join the 21st century and talk about improving the new form factors fine,
if not, I can introduce you to some guys who pay five grand for a single end triode amp putting out five watts, hooked up to a 20 thousand dollar turntable

[Mr Peabody]

Pix if you want to be the champion of LCD that's fine but I don't think your analogy of comparing video to high end audio fits. It's offensive that you would make light of those who appreciate good sound to some one like yourself who apparently can't hear any difference. I doubt if you have heard either a $5k amp or $20k turntable. If you had you'd have better sense than to make statements like that, unless you do have a hearing problem, which could be possible with long exposure to Klipsch.

If anyone knew Terrance personally and can verify his claims, let me know. I personally thought he was a boaster who was lucky to have done or known half of what he stated. I also thought Toshiba was pretty much out of consideration for good TV viewing until they came out with the DLP. When I was shopping for TV's Toshiba's CRT's were cheap but were doing good to match sets like RCA. I know on the show floor is far from good viewing but with all sets on the same playing field, Toshiba CRT's was never a consideration for me.

[pixelthis]

Pix if you want to be the champion of LCD that's fine but I don't think your analogy of comparing video to high end audio fits. It's offensive that you would make light of those who appreciate good sound to some one like yourself who apparently can't hear any difference. I doubt if you have heard either a $5k amp or $20k turntable. If you had you'd have better sense than to make statements like that, unless you do have a hearing problem, which could be possible with long exposure to Klipsch.

If anyone knew Terrance personally and can verify his claims, let me know. I personally thought he was a boaster who was lucky to have done or known half of what he stated. I also thought Toshiba was pretty much out of consideration for good TV viewing until they came out with the DLP. When I was shopping for TV's Toshiba's CRT's were cheap but were doing good to match sets like RCA. I know on the show floor is far from good viewing but with all sets on the same playing field, Toshiba CRT's was never a consideration for me.
Actually the comparison of high end audio to high end video is quite accurate.
Its a matter of snobbery, the human need to look down your nose at someone.
What do I know about turntables and single end triode amps? You'd be surprized
at my record collection, a lot I bought as a kid, and my old technics turntable that
still sounds pretty good. But just like so called "audiophiles" ignore the inherent deficiencies of vinyl (limited dynamic range, wow , flutter, rumble, having to constantly clean everything) and wax nostalgic about playing tunes on the old "platter" so do some
do the same thing on this board, waxing poetic about a display device that everybody
put up with because they had to and will get rid of as soon as possible.
My last crt was a samsung "tau" set, 30in, very nice. Nice but obsolete.
Picture quality is extremely important, but you make tradeoffs if you live in the real world.
I went with rear projection to get a bigger picture, none matched the picture on my 32in sony XBR, but the bigger size was worth the tradeoff
Most cant afford a backup set so reliability, ease of use and other factors have to factor into a buying decision. Doesnt matter if your Dlp measures a better black level than
my LCD in a lab (most wouldnt notice in the real world) if the color wheel broke or the light burnt out and you had to wait for a replacement. And try to keep dust off of the optics in these things, good luck.
I am not a "champion" of LCDS BTW, but they will make big screen HDTV available
to the great unwashed, and they are a heck of a lot easier to live with than Crts.
I like my movies the way they were made, and spent years watching letterboxed
movies the size of a postcard on 32in and under sets.
And if the snobs would get their frostbitten noses out of the upper atmosphere for a minute they would have to admit that, in the great scheme of things the modern displays look better, have bigger screens, and are really cheaper.
I just happen to think a flat panel is the best form factor for the real world, and is the best overall display device for the home
As for toshiba, everything I ever bought from them either underperformed or broke within
a few years:12: