Posted by Temsonic on 07/23/06 09:49

"Gunther Gloop" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:4ia7vgF2tcj6U1@individual.net...
> Gary Kelman wrote:
>>> Possibly this can never be done in a digital format -and if not, we
>>> could see a push towards a "return" to a high-quality analogue
>>> format for purists at some stage.
>>>
>>> But who knows?
>>>
>>
>> Hmm, I never thought of that. To compare it to music, I've thought in
>> the last year or so, that vinyl will one day outsell CD again. Not
>> for a while, but eventually and for the same reason as you say for
>> films. The CD vs vinyl debate is something everyone has a opinion on,
>> I wonder if people are as bothered about films though?
>>
>
> I'm not sure people are as bothered about higher-than-dvd quality films to
> be honest (the general public I mean). Afterall, most people were quite
> content with VHS.
> But after a few years of nothing but digital I wouldn't at all be
> surprised with "experts" announcing the holy grail of home-cinema...
> *ANALOGUE!*
>
> ...Although I'd imagine that day to be at least 10 years away... more like
> 15 - 20 even.
>
> -Kevin.

A lot of people seem to be overlooking particular aspects of the move from
standard def DVD to high def and are likening it to the switch from VHS to
DVD. It's _not_ like moving from VHS to DVD, because that move wasn't only
about the picture resolution and sound quality.

Firstly there was the move from tape to disc, which brought about the
ability to access any point of the film more or less immediately and removed
the need to rewind it afterwards, as well as content that could be changed
on the fly, ie multiple audio tracks, video angles, optional subtitles,
interactive elements etc. Then there's their ability to hold 5.1 soundtracks
and switch between anamorphic and non-anamorphic output, and the fact that
for the first time the vast majority of films were being released in the
original aspect ratio as standard etc, and this in turn encouraged mass
consumer buying of widescreen TV's and surround sound systems. None of this
was available with VHS, the leap to DVD was massive.

Now whatever other capabilities Blu-ray and HD-DVD may have, if Joe public
has heard of them at all, all he knows is that they deliver better picture
and sound quality than DVD. I'm not suggesting that better pic and sound is
a bad thing, but compared with the last format switch, it's hardly going to
entice most people to upgrade in the near future, especially with a
pointless format war going on (though from what I've read Blu-ray appears to
be losing badly already).

As most people seem to be happy with MP3 quality for music, let alone have
any hope of distinguishing between even Dolby Digital and DTS (note, I said
most people - not people who frequent a DVD newsgroup!), the improved sound
on HD discs can't be much of a selling point, and that's aside from the fact
you'd need a new compatible amp to hear anything other than DTS at best
anyway, so what it basically comes down to at present is:

Salesman: Buy HD! You only need to spend �1500 on a new telly and �300-�500
on a new DVD player (which isn't available in this country yet) and choose
which format you think will win the war, and whichever one you choose there
will be films you can't buy anyway because some studios only support one
format! Oh and �300 on a Sky HD box, not forgetting the standard Sky sub and
the extra �120 a year just be able to receive HD channels!

Consumer: And for my two and a half grand I get...?

Salesman: Better picture!

Consumer: You must be fucking mad.

[Back to original message]