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?


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, at almost two and a half hours, might be a shade long. Having said t…

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story

With its release on home video, we come to the unsurprising and yet still bitter disappointment that is Rogue One: A Star Wars Story. Unsurprising, because of a lousy director. Disappointing, because it should have been great. To explain further will involve light spoilers; I will avoid larger giveaways. In a galaxy far, far away, the Empire continues to consolidate its power after the fall of the Republic (see Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith). Toward that end, they are assembling a giant battle station, the Death Star. The Rebel Alliance plots a way of finding out what’s going on and perhaps, in the process, save their collective butts. Rebellious galivanting ensues. All of the elements necessary to craft a good story are here, yet none of them work. The blame lies almost exclusively at the feet of director Gareth Edwards. This is his third film (after Monsters and Godzilla) and his failings as a director stand out in each. The major problems with each film involve the peopl…

Conspiracy (2001)

The Holocaust remains an unfathomable atrocity, the unholy benchmark by which all such are measured. Stalin and Mao both make Hitler look like an amateur when it came to sheer body count, yet the Holocaust remains unique. It seems to boil down to two reasons. First, the Nazis were terrifying in their systematic approach to the slaughter of Jews, driven by their ideological belief that they were acting for the greater good of all mankind. And second, they hunted Jews in any land they conquered; the goal wasn't merely to "purify" Germany, but the world. Few films have captured these points as well as HBO's 2001 film, Conspiracy. On January 20, 1942, a group of senior officials of Nazi Germany met at a lovely house in the Berlin suburb of Wannsee. The purpose of their meeting was to determine the "final solution" for the Jews. The Wannsee Conference developed what is referred to as the Wannsee Protocol. A single copy of the document remains. Conspiracy, drawi…