ufoclub said:

Yeah, i guess they will all run from the sports bars to throw out their TVs and DVD players to buy that widescreen for extra lines of clarity.

thats totally whats gonna happen.

xperience319 said:

It already has. You're a bit in the dark aren't you? Have you been to Best Buy lately? Or even Target? Looked at what's for sale? DVD vs VHS was much less a difference than this, much less, and people swore they couldn't care less. Now look. The difference between an interlaced NTSC tv and a progressive HD is just as dramatic as the difference between super 8 film and 35mm film (that you see in theatres)

And you play with a Wii... you should know better than to be a conservative doubter in denial.

i take it that xperience319 is from Oz just by goin from your sig and we dont have best buy here and things are very different here.....we are quite behind in terms of technology, we have it and all but its just not getting used as we just dont need it, and i dare say dont really want it as we are quite contempt with what we currently have.

I have a friend who has more money than sense and his got 2! 1080p tvs....both on the same entertainment bench thingy! and he doesnt even bother with HD stuff the only time his used it is when his house mate was playing Xbox....and even then not a lot of those games have 1080p settings so he has to scale it down to 720p. And you would think that having 2 giant tvs would make him go out and buy a Bluray/HD DVD player but he doesnt as like many people he cant justify the price of the actual player and than the actual price of the dvds, i mean you can get your normal dvds for $5 - $20 whereas blu rays START at $30! not worth it in my opinion

ufoclub said:

Nope, middle of the day here, so sunny.

dude, i own a ps3, 360 and a wii...so don't go there...i also have a sexy widescreen plasma and yeah stuff looks a little prettier. But then i'll happily go back to a NES on RF (!!!!!) and i don't give a shite.

You'll find most people *don't care*, the difference is just not that massive to the untrained, non-tech nut, consumer.

Sure the technology is coming, in no rush, with a collective shoulder shrug from most people.

A friend mention last week that 1080p will be replaced with 3360p within a year. I have not read that anywhere but I can't wait 2 see that picture.

kcwm said:

Just a word of note about HD; I remember seeing the first HDTV pictures in 1993 when the CES was still based in Chicago, and even then the picture quality blew standard NTSC out of the water. Having said that, while I would love to but a huge flat-screen HDTV set right now, the overwhelming desire to get one isn't there yet because I don't see the thrill of watching Jerry Springer, Maury Povich or Flavor of Love on HD all that exciting.

I did notice some interesting news this week regarding the CES in Las Vegas. It talked about how Sony, Toshiba, Panasonic and Sharp were all bringing out these humongous TV sets or super thin paneled HDTV sets to try to set them apart from the cheaper HDTV manufacturers, because in the end the brand name HDTV sets were not really any different than the cheap knockoffs. (In fact, the brand name HDTV sets and cheap knockoff brands are having their manufacturing outsourced to usually the same Chinese companies.) And once these companies know that the consumers are aware that these sets aren't any different from each other, the HDTV's will become a commodity product, and a wholesale price war will result, which will wipe out the huge margins they have received because of HDTV being a "new" product.

728huey said:

and that sir, is why I remain a "laggard"

Fury said:

gee..perhaps if they had started out at this price, or close to it, they would have kicked blu-rays ass, or at least put a real scare into sony. the fact that you can now sell these things at half price suggests that they wren't worth the price they were asking for anyway.

Fury said:

They did this in December and sold them below cost. It was a desperate attempt to buy more consumers into the fold.

Fury said:

VHS vcr's were around $1000 at one time. so were DVD players

ufoclub said:

I bought my first DVD player in late 1997 and started writing professionally about DVD a couple years later. I don't recall any first generation players being that expensive. Several hundred dollars for sure, but not in the $1,000 range. There were intially laser disc/DVD combo players (when they were unsure how DVD would fare) that were pricey, but other than that, I don't remember them being quite that expensive.

ufoclub said:

so in a few more years Im going to be buying all my criterion collection movies in a different format and better quality picture still?

horatio said:

Can you imagine what the price would be? Criterion DVDs are already crazy expensive.

sextonseven said:

Yeah, they are. But the content used to justify it. Before they bedded down w/Disney (and still to some extent) they specialized in harder to find or more specialized fare. I paid $75 for my Halloween Criterion LD in 1996. And that was $25 off.

RipHer2Shreds said:

I just got Halloween on blue ray and it looks amazing, and I'll never watch my collectors dvd again (unless I want to see the extended tv version). One note though, when I watch the Blue-ray, I actually switch the soundtrack to the original mono version, not the remastered surround. The mono sounds more like what I remember as the right mood for Halloween.

ufoclub said:

The Blu-Ray Halloween is okay. They stripped the orange tones from the day scenes and the blue from the night scenes. I don't like that, but the quality of the image itself is good. I like that the original mono track is there. On previous DVDs they down-converted the 5.1 remaster to a mono track and it wasn't the same.

RipHer2Shreds said:

okay, maybe not a grand, but they were expensive "Toshiba's SD-3000 DVD player (one of the first DVD players to debut in the United States) costs roughly $700. "

ufoclub said:

I can't remember the model number but my first player was a Toshiba. I gave it to my brother in 1999, and it still plays.

RipHer2Shreds said:

I Am Curious Yellow/Blue in HD.

sextonseven said:

I'm getting a front end projector soon. Can't wait.

RipHer2Shreds said:

Are you sure the orange and blue weren't exaggerated in the masters done for ntsc in the 80's? I suspect this new blue-ray was created off the "THX certified" master scan done a few years ago from a more pristine negative. Meaning it looks more like it did in the theatre.

ufoclub said:

I'm speaking of the new print from 1999 that was supervised by the original cinematographer, Dean Cundey.

RipHer2Shreds said:

I see what you 're talking about. The way he wants the saturation of the blues looks very typically 80's ( a vivid foggy blue that masks other color tones), even though Halloween seemed to have more of the 70's aesthetic in my memory.

I like the way he made The Thing look.

what the fuck are y'all talking about???


and how is it gonna affect porn???

roodboi said:

Every wrinkle, sore and surgery scar on the actors will now be visible.

Yay hi-def!

sextonseven said:

HAWT!!!