Remember 8 track? Cassette killed it. How long did it take?
Vinyl was killed (vinylfiles need not respond) by CD in about
four years.
VHS was killed by DVD in the space of 4-5 years.
So, once Blu-HD-Ray-DVD is released, how long will
DVD persist? My guess is (owing to the numbers of DVD
machines, the acceptability of the format and the precarious
nature of the blu-ray, HD-DVD war, DVD should last another
8-10 years once the other two get released.
-Rich

Rich wrote:

I assume that the HD players will still play regular DVDs.
(Just as DVD players play CDs).If this is the case,
standard DVDs should be around for many years.

I've replaced most of my VHS tapes with DVD. I don't plan
on replacing my DVDs with HD. Atleast, not in the near future.

----------------
Best Forums & Sites
http://campu2.net

So very hard to say. If they get this silly format war out of the way,
it could be sooner than you would think. The prices on HD sets keep
coming down. HD OTA seems to really be taking off, from an
availability standpoint. As more and more people buy HD sets, they're
going to want to take advantage of them.

Still, DVD has a lot of advantages:

1. Extreme market penetration. The most popular, most quickly accepted
media format of all time.
2. Reliability. The discs will likely last decades.
3. They look great on HDTV sets.
4. They will most certainly be cheaper than whichever HD format wins.
Part of DVD's quick acceptance was that the pricing was good right out
of the box. Maybe a little higher than VHS in the beginning, but
nowhere near the princely sums paid for Laserdiscs. I don't think the
studios will be that smart this time. And after being an LD owner, I
ain't anxious to pony up $40 for a movie with no extras just because
it's in HD, and I'm certainly not willing to pony up $125 or more for a
season set of a TV show. I ain't bought the X-Files on DVD yet because
the pricing sucks. I have, however, bought a lot of $14 movies and $40
TV seasons.

-beaumon

"campu2.net" <campu2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129254974.198464.122870@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...

I've never been under the assumption that HD-DVD or Blu-Ray was going to
take over for standard DVDs. I still don't think enough people have an HDTV
to warrant either format becoming more dominant than regular DVDs. Yes,
more people have HDTV's but they only have 1, not 1 in every room. I have a
fairly large DVD collection (500 DVDs) and I can't see myself replacing but
a handful of titles--only about 10 (and that's being really generous). And
realistically, I wouldn't replace them as I'd still have the standard
version around for portability purposes--there's not going to be an HDTV or
HD-player everywhere I go. I think the future of DVD is pretty secure. I
think lots of people have more DVDs than they had VHS tapes, and their
willingness to part with them will be a much tougher fight when a new format
hits the market. I still only see HD-formats as a niche market. And I may
be totally wrong, but I think the general public is starting to grow weary
of new formats. I haven't experienced an HD disc so I can't say I know what
it's like, but I have and HDTV and (although I'm blown away by the clarity)
I can't see myself paying more for a movie just to get it in HD.

Morgan

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:07:41 -0700, Morgan <morgan@johnandmorgan.com> wrote:

substitute LP for DVD and CD for HD-DVD/blueray.

However, IMNSHO HDTV is too little an improvement to dump DVDs or even
laserdiscs. It's only twice as sharp as the old crappy NTSC and still needs
to improve at least fivefold to even approach film quality.

When the next technology after HDTV comes along then I'll start replacing
my laserdiscs and DVDs.

AZ Nomad wrote on [Fri, 14 Oct 2005 17:45:43 GMT]:

Oh bullshit. LPs got scratches and skips and were huge and bulky. All
these families with DVD players in their minivans aren't going to be
switching to HD any time soon. There's still confusion about playing
DVDs in CD players, let alone the confusion that HD discs will add to
the mix. The general public won't upgrade unless they see a big benefit
to it. VHS->DVD had that, LP->CD had that. DVD->HD-DVD/Blu-Ray doesn't.

AZ Nomad <aznomad@PmunOgeBOX.com> wrote:


More like DVD=CD and HD-DVD/BluRay=SACD, IMO.

Morgan (morgan@johnandmorgan.com) wrote in alt.video.dvd:

Then, too, if you don't have at least a 17" screen, HD really won't help
much at all.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Goals.gif

AZ Nomad (aznomad@PmunOgeBOX.com) wrote in alt.video.dvd:

Then, you obviously haven't seen any HDTV. I can agree that "dumping" the
old stuff would be silly, but if the new discs and players were priced
the even close to DVDs, it'll be a no-brainer (assuming no "Internet
authorization" crap) to buy them for new releases. Other advantages to
the new discs might be full bitrate DTS for most movies, since the 1.4Mbps
of a DTS track is nothing compared to the 15-25Mbps of the movie itself.


I'm not sure where you learned to do math, but "old crappy NTSC" is about
480x360 for a 16:9 picture. DVD (which is *good* NTSC) is 720x480 (with
discs that are "enhanced for 16:9 TVs"). Both are interlaced.

HDTV on disc can be 1920x1080 and progressive scan. That's 12 times as
many pixels as "old crappy NTSC" and 6 times as many as DVD, plus you get
progressive scan.

--
Jeff Rife | Sam: How's life treatin' you, Norm?
|
| Norm: Well, Sammy, it's not...so I sure
| hope you are.

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:12:26 -0400, Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:



Or you've never seen a movie.


On a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being a quality film and 1 being NTSC, HDTV is
at best a 3. HDTV is great only when compared to NTSC.