Skip to main content

Format Wars

HD-DVD took a hit last week when Warner announced that they were going to be Blu-Ray exclusive. This leaves only three major players in the HD-DVD field who are exclusively HD-DVD. Everyone else either releases in both formats or is Blu-Ray exclusive.

To which I express supreme indifference.

This shouldn't be. I should be jumping up and down happy with one or the other, but I remember the introduction of home video cassette players, and the minor war between Betamax and VHS. I loved Betamax but we know how the war ended. In this current struggle I have no idea which format might theoretically be superior to the others -- odds are that Blu-Ray is incrementally superior, but then again it's also supposed to be incrementally more expensive -- because I genuinely don't care.

It's all about the money. When I jumped out of tape to DVD I got immediate benefits at minimal cost. I got a more permanent media (my tapes were dying) and a better picture. The player was only $250 at the time (a Toshiba, best DVD player I've ever seen or used, bar none, and it came with five movies of my choosing; I still miss it). It plugged into my existing TV and stereo. Voila, instant coolness.

Using myself as a simple example, contrast that upgrade to DVD to any attempt to upgrade to HD. My TV is an old-school 32-inch CRT. It can't handle the input from either sort of HD player. Even if it could, the image improvement HD offers would be lost. So I'd have to upgrade my TV. An excellent LCD HD TV, something in the 40-inch range, is easily $1500 or better.

Then there's that matter of the players. I'd have to buy one of the better hybrid models, one that handles all three formats: DVD, HD-DVD, and Blu-Ray. That's a thousand dollars right there, almost the cost of my dream TV. (Buying a cheap player for each format isn't that much cheaper and becomes a wiring nightmare.)

I'd have to dump a bundle on a new surround sound system because my current one can't handle HDMI inputs, the (current) connector of choice for HD. This is a minimum of $500, and probably more like another thousand.

So just to think about buying HD content I'm looking at first spending almost $4000 (with cables, odds and ends, and sales tax). In the end I'd have a kick ass gorgeous TV, some ear-bleeding sound ability, and...?

I have no reason to dump my current film collection and start again. HD films cost roughly double a regular DVD. Is the improved quality worth it? I have doubts.

Consider that I can upgrade my existing system for less than $2000. Same TV as above, but instead of an HD player I get one of the better DVD players that "up-converts" your regular 480p DVD to 720p/1080i HD resolution. Such players run less than $100. A friend got a Sony; he tells me it works perfectly. I'd grab a Toshiba.

So for half the cost I keep my current library, continue to buy cheap DVD's, and get most of the benefit of "upgrading" to either HD disk format.

Tell me again why I should spend $4000?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Not the Hero We Deserve, But the Hero We Need

The Dark Knight is the best film I’ve seen in years. Not just the best “superhero” film, but the best film of any type. It’s not perfect, not quite a masterpiece, but it’s flaws are, to me, tiny and overwhelmed by the time the film ends. While relatively bloodless, it is consistently brutal, not just in what it depicts but in the themes that drive it. TDK is a film for adults, please leave the kids at home. Let’s deal with those “flaws” first, the largest being the character Rachel Dawes . In Batman Begins , I blamed Katie Holmes . Her acting was weak, to say the least, which is regrettable in that who she is and what she says and does are important to the film. Critics agreed and either for that or other reasons, Katie was replaced by Maggie Gyllenhaal , who is a better actress. Yet here she’s weak, real weak. Maybe it’s the character, not the actress, which is frustrating because Rachel is a pivotal character. The film,...

John Wick: Chapter 4

No sense in playing coy, this is a great film. I’ve seen it twice and while I don’t quite love it in the way I love the first, original John Wick , it’s my #2. It’s a little overlong, has some wasted space and time, has one absolutely pointless and useless character, and generally ignores the realities of firefights, falling, getting shot, hit, etc. All that notwithstanding, it’s a great action flick, has a genuine emotional core, and is well worth your time if you’re into that sort of thing. Like I am. Summary: John Wick (Keanu Reeves), last seen saying he was fed up with the High Table, goes to war to obtain his freedom. Some of the most incredible action scenes ever filmed ensue, culminating in a very satisfactory finale and a devastating post-credit scene. The first Wick film was a surprise hit. It was a simple, straight-forward tale of vengeance told in a simple, straight-forward manner. Where it stood out was its devotion to human stunt work, on exploiting long camera shots that ...

Dune Part 2 (2024)

I have come not to praise Dune but to bury it. I am in a distinct minority. So be it. To explain why, there will be some minor spoilers ahead; sorry. The short version is #NotMyDune. Summary: Picking up where Dune Part 1 left off, we find the young Paul Atreides (Timothée Chalamet) hanging out with the Fremen. Plots to overthrow rival houses and empires ensue. Go here to see what I thought about Dune Part 1 (2021) . Overall, I found it to be technically brilliant, but lacking a human heart, an exercise in frenetic slow motion. D2 is more of the same, though with far more action. Acting-wise, everyone is doing a fine, more than adequate job. Absolutely no one or nothing stands out. The way the characters are written (adapted, actually), their back and forths and interactions, are all weak and unengaging. I generally hate when they speak. I've read the novel a ridiculous number of times, and these films are prompting me to read it again. I understand that trying to translate the n...