And Microsoft loses a BIG one!

[K Frame]

This comes one day after Wal Mart announced it won't carry HD-DVDs.


TOKYO (Reuters) - Toshiba Corp (6502.T) is planning to give up on its HD DVD format for high-definition video, conceding defeat to the competing Blu-Ray technology backed by Sony Corp (6758.T), a company source said on Saturday.

Japanese public broadcaster NHK had earlier reported that Toshiba would suffer losses in the tens of billions of yen (hundreds of millions of dollars) as it scrapped production of HD DVD players and recorders and took other steps to exit the business.

The company source told Reuters that Toshiba was in the final stages of planning to exit the HD DVD business and that an official decision would be made soon.

[Manedwolf]

Ouch.

Well, that's likely why MS made the HD player for the 360 a standalone unit. Screws the people who bought it, but they can now engage in revisionist history, bury that one and release a standalone blue-ray unit for it.

Microsoft has no problems screwing previous customers (PlaysForSure?), but they at least didn't make the 360's into half-useless devices.

[CAnnoneer]

Serves them right. The smart thing to do was to agree on a common format and then compete within it. I purposefully have held back from HD until the dust settles so I don't end up with prematurely obsolete junk.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Cool!

I've been waiting patiently to see which HD movie format will prevail.  Nice to see that Toshiba had the good graces to throw the towel in.  They could have stayed in the game and poisoned the market long enough for neither format to catch on.

[RevDisk]

Serves them right. The smart thing to do was to agree on a common format and then compete within it. I purposefully have held back from HD until the dust settles so I don't end up with prematurely obsolete junk.

Which is pretty much what you'd have if you went with HD-DVD or BluRay.  HD-DVD is dead, but I picked one up recently as everyone is unloading the discs cheap.  More or less the same quality as a BluRay disc for half the price, and I bought the player for $150.  I was actually just going to buy a DVD upscaler, which was a hair over a $100.  So I "overpaid" $50 for a dead format.  With several hundred titles out, for dirt cheap.

If I was looking to be a frugal consumer, I'd get by with an upscaler until Profile 2.0 is out.  Oh, wait, most folks hawking BR don't meantion that.  The majority of the affordable BR players are Profile 1.0 compliant (to varying degrees), with more becoming Profile 1.1 compliant.  But eventually all BR technology is supposed to move to the BR Profile 2.0 standard, and the compadibility of earlier models is already looking suspect.  The only theoretical Profile 2.0 player is the PlayStation 3 whenever Sony releases new firmware updates.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The added functionality in bluray profile 1.1 and 2.0 don't add anything substantive to the player.  Movies play the same under all three profiles.  There are no compatibility concerns: all bluray movies will play under all three profiles.

[Perd Hapley]

HD?  I honestly can't imagine why anyone cares.  How are garden-variety DVDs on regular-old TVs not good enough?  What is it that you need to see so clearly so badly? 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

HD movies on HD TVs look dramatically better than standard DVDs on standard TVs.

I'm not particularly interested in broadcast TV, but I do like movies.  Movies really do look much, much better in HD.

[Brad Johnson]

Hd-DVD going the way of the dodo isn't surprising if you've been keeping up with the sales numbers.  HD has been losing to BR almost three to one since last summer.  Too bad they had to muck up the market like that.  They could have had a bang-up holiday season, but noooooo...  Now it will take almost a year to get the consumer confidence back up.

Brad

[Hawkmoon]

Yawn.

Just a replay of the 8-track vs casette tape wars of the 60s, and the VHS vs. BetaMax war of the late 70s.

[Tecumseh]

HD?  I honestly can't imagine why anyone cares.  How are garden-variety DVDs on regular-old TVs not good enough?  What is it that you need to see so clearly so badly? 

  This is my thought as well.  My roommate has a big screen TV and HDTV etc.  I could really care less.  It looks better, but it was not that bad to begin with. 

Sad that people care so much about this crap. 

[Perd Hapley]

HD movies on HD TVs look dramatically better than standard DVDs on standard TVs.

I'm not particularly interested in broadcast TV, but I do like movies.  Movies really do look much, much better in HD.

I think it's just me.  Like Tecumseh, I find that the old-school DVD/TV looks just fine.  It's better than the 13" B&W we had as kids. 

But then, dissatisfaction breeds progress, so...

[K Frame]

HD?  I honestly can't imagine why anyone cares.  How are garden-variety DVDs on regular-old TVs not good enough?  What is it that you need to see so clearly so badly? 

The difference in quality between standard def and high def when playing an Xbox 360 game is incredible.


Just because you're a blind luddite doesn't mean that everyone is.

[Perd Hapley]

Just because you're a blind luddite doesn't mean that everyone is.   

True enough.      I don't think I've ever seen HD anything, and I doubt I would notice the improvement.  Just like I've never detected the superior picture quality of DVD over VHS.  Looks the same to me.

[Werewolf]

HD?  I honestly can't imagine why anyone cares.  How are garden-variety DVDs on regular-old TVs not good enough?  What is it that you need to see so clearly so badly? 

FWIW I've read a number of articles that say exactly that.

The gist of the articles were that standard DVD's in wide screen on a high def TV are so noise free that unless you put it up side by side with a hi-def version to compare with it's pretty hard to tell the difference. And even if you can most people could care less anyway because good enough is good enough - especially at the current cost of getting a hi-def player in blu-ray.

[wooderson]

SDTV can look terrible on an HD set. The leap from SD to HD is worth a small investment if you watch much TV (particularly sports).

There is a difference in quality between 480p (DVD res) and HD (usually 720p or 1080i in the affordable range), but it's not as noticeable for most films. Depending on how far you sit from the screen and how large the screen is, you might not be able to tell any difference at all.

[Perd Hapley]

SDTV can look terrible on an HD set. The leap from SD to HD is worth a small investment if you watch much TV (particularly sports). 

Then the problem is clearly not the technology involved, but that you have made two mistakes. 

1.  Watching television.

2.  Watching sports. 

[wooderson]

The only show I watch religiously isn't even broadcast in HD. (dear cheap bastards at HBO: WHAT YOU COULDN'T GIVE ME BAL'MER MURDERS AND DRUG SLINGING IN GLORIOUS HI-DEF???)

[K Frame]

"I don't think I've ever seen HD anything, and I doubt I would notice the improvement."

Yeah. Right. That made me giggle.

You'd be flabbergasted at how much sharper an HD picture is.

Couple examples...

Watching a college basketball game a few years ago. Not only could you see the beads of sweat on the player's faces, you could READ, as in READ THE WORDS, of a black tattoo on a black player's arm. On standard definition, it was hard to tell that there was even a tattoo on the guy's arm.

World Series last year.

Jonathan Pappelbon in the last game. He hadn't shaved. You could see the individual whiskers on his face. As he did his wind up, you could READ the logo on the ball and count the individual stitches.

It's even noticeable when watching series like Law and Order or a sit-com.


"1.  Watching television.

2.  Watching sports."

Ah, I get it. You hate America.

[K Frame]

SDTV can look terrible on an HD set. The leap from SD to HD is worth a small investment if you watch much TV (particularly sports).

There is a difference in quality between 480p (DVD res) and HD (usually 720p or 1080i in the affordable range), but it's not as noticeable for most films. Depending on how far you sit from the screen and how large the screen is, you might not be able to tell any difference at all.

It's extremely noticeable when you pair an HD TV with an HD DVD in an HD DVD player.

[Ben]

I haven't pulled the trigger on and HD DVD recorder yet, but DVDs even on my standard recorder coupled with the HD TV even at 480P blew me away in comparison to my old TV. I rewatched the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy in one marathon session right after I first saw that difference. I haven't watched an HD DVD yet, but am looking forward to it.

If you really wanna be convinced re: HD, watch Discovery's Blue Planet in high def -- truly amazing.

[Perd Hapley]

"I don't think I've ever seen HD anything, and I doubt I would notice the improvement."

Yeah. Right. That made me giggle.

You'd be flabbergasted at how much sharper an HD picture is.

Mike, I'm not saying there isn't a difference.  I'm saying that I don't notice things like that.  Only time will tell, but you really can't know what I would or would not notice.  I'm sure Bogie would be surprised to learn that his super-duper sound system would sound no different to me than a cheap radio.  Just accept my dull senses, so you can make fun of them.  Deal?   

[wooderson]

It's extremely noticeable when you pair an HD TV with an HD DVD in an HD DVD player.

See, I disagree with that. I've got a Vizio 720p TV and a Toshiba HD player, and while there is a difference in quality, it's not always distinctly visible (the last Bourne movie didn't look vastly different in HD on my set and regular DVD at a friend's house, for instance), and it's nothing like the leap between SDTV and HDTV.

There are certain types of movies where you can see the difference better, like animation (the Pixar flicks are greatly improved in HD) and I would guess CGI-heavy action movies. But it's not universal, and maybe not worth the cost for someone happy with their current setup.

[Manedwolf]

It's extremely noticeable when you pair an HD TV with an HD DVD in an HD DVD player.

See, I disagree with that. I've got a Vizio 720p TV and a Toshiba HD player, and while there is a difference in quality, it's not always distinctly visible (the last Bourne movie didn't look vastly different in HD on my set and regular DVD at a friend's house, for instance), and it's nothing like the leap between SDTV and HDTV.

That's because your Vizio 720p is the bargain low end of even Vizio's range, with the lowest resolution. They make a 1080p TV, too. You'd see a difference if you owned that instead. Also, if your Toshiba HD player is one of the massive early ones, they've greatly improved since that model.

[K Frame]

"I'm saying that I don't notice things like that."

I could pluck your eyes out and stick them in my pocket and you would notice the difference. Yes, it is THAT much of a difference.

I used to claim to be the same way.

The difference?

You doing scale up in small increments, you go up in magnitudes of order when you go from a standard to a good quality HD TV with a digital HD signal.

I also used to claim to be able to hear no difference between a radio and a quality stereo system. Then I made the mistake of listening to Mal Hightower's stereo system and the speakers that he has.

Even you would notice the difference.



"I've got a Vizio 720p TV..."

I'm sorry to hear that.

You plug that Bourne movie into my 1080p Toshiba Regza (which is now vastly outdated despite being only 8 months old) you will notice a HUGE difference.