WalMart_Worf Posted April 22, 2007 Share Posted April 22, 2007 (edited) More like 6 feet at the most, and I shudder to think who sits at only 6 feet from their TV screen except maybe college students living in dorm rooms.And 720P is not 2.5x 480P, it is 1.5 times that, and the extra detail would only be noticeable if the source was extremely good (i.e. a recent movie, preferably recorded in digital). Anyway I'm not arguing that HD is a waste of money, I have a 42" HD Panasonic Plasma myself and I'll be buying an HD player of some kind, preferably a dual format one. Simply put, the average Walmart customer with a standard definition TV or a high definition small-screen TV is not going to get any noticeable benefit from this player, putting aside issues of build quality and the inevitable scaling issues (upscaling or downscaling, makes no difference - it's still the cheap internal scaler working to do the job). That's precisely why the "format wars" have been such a non-event for all but the excitable fanboys: there is no real benefit to the average consumer just yet. bull****. 480p = 852?480 = 408,960 720p = 1366?768 = 1,049,088 1,049,088/ 408,960 = 2.57 and the same people who sit that far from the tv are the ones who buy $500 HDTVs. probably people in apartments, ones who have them in secondary rooms, yes kids in dorms, trailers, whatever... and youre still wrong. next time youre at the store stand 6-7 feet from a 720p 32" tv. then do the same to a standard 480 tube. if you cant see a diff youre blind or need new glasses. & again; by the time these players come out in the fall dont be surprised if youre seeing 32" 720p sets for $350 Edited April 22, 2007 by WalMart_Worf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Dash8 Posted April 22, 2007 Share Posted April 22, 2007 Firstly if you want to get technical, the number of pixels on a screen is not the best way to measure resolution. I was referring to the number of horizontal lines of resolution, but even if talking about pixels (sample points of the original image), it depends on the source. Taking more samples of a crappy old movie results in an even more obviously crappy movie. Case in point: people say that CRT has the best image quality compared to Plasma or LCD. Contrast Ratios (deepness of black aside), one reason is that CRT's lower resolution and blurryness makes even poor quality sources appear quite good. As soon as you put a poor quality source movie on a sharp display like an LCD, you see each and every flaw in the source. This is also why your argument about comparing a 480P "tube" to a 32" LCD is false. You can't compare two different technologies side by side to see the benefit of HD. Especially not a comparison of analog vs. digital displays, as each has their strong points and weak points. Finally, what on earth are you going on about regarding the cheap TVs? Are you trying to confirm my point? I agree that people who have relatively cheaper TVs will get this player, but that's also exactly why I consider it a scam. Why on earth does someone who has a cheap TV need to fork out cash for an HD player and go and rebuy all their favorite movies on HD when DVD can serve them perfectly well?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalMart_Worf Posted April 22, 2007 Share Posted April 22, 2007 Firstly if you want to get technical, the number of pixels on a screen is not the best way to measure resolution. I was referring to the number of horizontal lines of resolution, but even if talking about pixels (sample points of the original image), it depends on the source. Taking more samples of a crappy old movie results in an even more obviously crappy movie.Case in point: people say that CRT has the best image quality compared to Plasma or LCD. Contrast Ratios (deepness of black aside), one reason is that CRT's lower resolution and blurryness makes even poor quality sources appear quite good. As soon as you put a poor quality source movie on a sharp display like an LCD, you see each and every flaw in the source. This is also why your argument about comparing a 480P "tube" to a 32" LCD is false. You can't compare two different technologies side by side to see the benefit of HD. Especially not a comparison of analog vs. digital displays, as each has their strong points and weak points. Finally, what on earth are you going on about regarding the cheap TVs? Are you trying to confirm my point? I agree that people who have relatively cheaper TVs will get this player, but that's also exactly why I consider it a scam. Why on earth does someone who has a cheap TV need to fork out cash for an HD player and go and rebuy all their favorite movies on HD when DVD can serve them perfectly well?? b.s. obviously you havent seen many of the older movies which look ab-so-****ing-lutely jaw dropping in HD. like casablanca or the sting. film is ultra high resolution already. and the grain you speak of is part of what gave movies character. its how they looked on the silver screen back then and how they were meant to look. and resolution is resolution. more pixels = sharper picture. SDTV and DVDs look like **** on HDTVs yes, which is PRECISELY WHY people would buy a $200 HD-DVD player. for their non-high end HDTV. face it, it's HDTV therefore it can play HD-DVD discs, therefore it can output an uncompressed high quality HD picture. which looks FAR & BEYOND better on HDTVs than DVD. its not rocket science. & again. LCDs have already entered the price realm of the average consumer & are expected to 1/2 in price by the end of the year. this player is scheduled for fall. people wont be buying them to play movies on their old SDTVs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berserk87 Posted April 22, 2007 Share Posted April 22, 2007 walmart has the cheapest candy around, why not shop there? and WalMart_Worf, u rox :p i love ur dp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goji Posted April 22, 2007 Share Posted April 22, 2007 youre retarded. the 360 has to emulate a lot of what the broadcom chipset does in hardware. of course its not going to need a triple core PPC. also intel is part of the HD-DVD consortium; they have a vested interest in keeping the format alive, im sure they would supply the chips at near cost; which by now is very freaking cheap for P4s. & if you werent paying attention; theres also another $300 million dollar deal for more players in 2008 pending the success of this launch. I'm sure you notice the link I provided which was one additional company building more machines other than Wal-mart, its quite obvious several companies are looking to jump on the bandwagon like: Lite-On, Jiangkui/ED Digital and Shinco. It would seem that 300 dollars seems to be the market entry point. also enough w/ this HDMI 1.3 bs. all 1.3 does is add a higher color gamut that LCDs and Plasmas cant even display yet. by the time they can you could get a player better than the highest end players now for sub $200. the lossless audio is barely noticeable. for example the on the departed the PCM audio highdefdigest said they had to stop rewind and re-listen and even then they couldnt really make out a diff. that he had to get a friend who he thinks has better ears, but even then he didnt know if his friend was just sensing the placebo effect. and how many people actually have surround sound setups w/ high end amps? people who are buying @ the $200 arent these people. people who make up 90% of the market arent these people. Then answer me why? What is the purpose for these High Def discs? Wal-mart is rolling out HD-DVD to saturate the market and undermine the quality that these formats promoted, other than the copyright protection but thats another topic. Still at that price point when the biggest competitor by and large will still be DVD's and the only major difference most consumers will see is a slightly sharper image, would you jump on it? The benefits are going to be marginal to none. & btw the PS3 cant do full BD-J; look it up. cant even do PiP (which this ohhh so crappy $200 player will have to do w/ HDi)& $500 you must be smoking crack. the HD-A2 is down to $310 on amazon already. a $200 hd-dvd player doesnt undermine HD it brings it mainstream, moron. did you not even read the link you posted to that venture player? Did you read it? Dolby Didital audio only? :blink: Not even DTS is provided, which is higher bit rate and kicks DD rear hands down on properly mastered discs. The cheapo players undermines the level of quality that the formats tout, you cannot argue that. As well, there is no guarantee that tthey will do PiP. The Venture player makes no mention of this on its product offerings or even 1080p, just wide screen and normal. Hmm. Most if not all companies, if their products are capable of 1080p will have it plastered all over the merchandise and materials, this one doesn't. HD-DVDs will look better than DVDs. its asinine you could even insinuate they wouldnt. seriously; either youre deluding yourself or you never stopped riding the short bus. I don't think anyone can deny that the HD-DVD discs will look better, though marginally on a cheaper player IMO. Noise reduction, color enhancements DSP will not be provided to clean the image up. The resolution is greater than DVD's so there will be a difference. Expect alot of faded colors with more grain vs higher end models. & your pioneer elite & meridian comparisons are bonkers. how many of those players do you think are sold every year. how many walmart dvd players are sold do you think? walmart is and has been the largest seller of dvd players (and DVDs) since they began selling them, and continues to be to this day. You would be surprised. It is quite a few to keep the companies floating and releasing continuous waves of gear year after year, and Meridian will be releasing its own HD-DVD players later in the year. Though Wal-mart may sell the most, quantity does not equate quality. Everyone should be able to agree on that. As stated multiple times before, this is nothing more than market saturation, to choose a victor in the format wars. At the end of the day, most consumers would have been better off sticking to DVD's and saving their cash for other projects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boz Posted April 22, 2007 Author Share Posted April 22, 2007 Whats the point? 200-300 dollars to receive what exactly? HD audio and video is about higher than regular DVD quality, none of which will be available this cheap this soon. Maybe 3 years after market penetration has been effectively reached and high end components become cheaper and standardized, but not now. HD products do not have any hard market share just yet. DVD is still just coming into its own with many average consumers. You are talking out of your ass you know. You have no idea how these units will perform or how even this HD-DVD unit is performing. All you posted is the link that unit exists and basically even Engadget says that they will most likely comply to HD-DVD group standard. And if you take a look at the specs on that photo you will notice it does upscale to 720p and 1080i. This is very significant. HD-DVD is just as good as blu-ray and your Blu-ray fanboyism is creeping out in the form of so much envy and anger. You go ahead and stick to your Blu-ray and $600 players and the rest of the people will enjoy hi-def movies on their cheap HD-DVD players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazog Posted April 22, 2007 Share Posted April 22, 2007 bull****. 480p = 852?480 = 408,960 720p = 1366?768 = 1,049,088 1,049,088/ 408,960 = 2.57 and the same people who sit that far from the tv are the ones who buy $500 HDTVs. probably people in apartments, ones who have them in secondary rooms, yes kids in dorms, trailers, whatever... and youre still wrong. next time youre at the store stand 6-7 feet from a 720p 32" tv. then do the same to a standard 480 tube. if you cant see a diff youre blind or need new glasses. & again; by the time these players come out in the fall dont be surprised if youre seeing 32" 720p sets for $350 720p is actually 1280x720. 1366x768 is an LCD resolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badtz-Maru Posted April 22, 2007 Share Posted April 22, 2007 hahhaha.no one loves you sony :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goji Posted April 22, 2007 Share Posted April 22, 2007 You are talking out of your ass you know. You have no idea how these units will perform or how even this HD-DVD unit is performing. All you posted is the link that unit exists and basically even Engadget says that they will most likely comply to HD-DVD group standard. And if you take a look at the specs on that photo you will notice it does upscale to 720p and 1080i. This is very significant. HD-DVD is just as good as blu-ray and your Blu-ray fanboyism is creeping out in the form of so much envy and anger. You go ahead and stick to your Blu-ray and $600 players and the rest of the people will enjoy hi-def movies on their cheap HD-DVD players. Nor do you know, so arguing that these units will be just as capable of the higher end models doesn't reinforce your position either. I have no idea where you get off accusing someone of "Blu-ray fanboyism" who doesn't even support Blu Ray nor has even alluded it to. If anything it reinforces your own blind fan boy support. If you actually read, instead of glossed over what I have said you should have guessed that I support HD-DVD and every part of the tech it has to offer, not some of them. I do not want to see the medium degraded this fast for cheap mass consumption. HD-DVD is an upgraded from DVD and a better medium than Blu-rau IMO all the way around especially for those that can truly appreciate it. Yet you still don't get it. There is no reason to purchase HD-DVD this cheap as most consumers do not have the equipment to truly enjoy it in hi-def. Most consumer are stuck in low-fi tech making HD superfluous. Yes, purchase the new fangled tech when a cheaper easily accessible medium already exists, DVD which for the target audience is just as good if not better. Why spend more money for marginally better graphics? Your just throwing your money away for bragging rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libertas83 Posted April 22, 2007 Share Posted April 22, 2007 I stopped buying DVDs a couple of years ago because I want better quality movies. If the source is high quality and my destination (TV) sucks, it is not waste of money. It is an investment that I can enjoy the movie now and when I go HDTV I can enjoy it better without double purchasing movies. Buying DVDs now until you get an HDTV then purchase same movies again on HD is a true waste of money!!! The source is what matters most! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Express Posted April 22, 2007 Share Posted April 22, 2007 Thats a very interesting chart. Thanks for posting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inplode Posted April 22, 2007 Share Posted April 22, 2007 most people who shop at wal-mart can't even afford a TV that a HD DVD will look good on... so why do they need one? yEA way to make your self look stupid ! i have a very nice home 3 2005 + cars . and i shop at wal-mart ! why because some on somethings i save cash ! just because people shop at wal-mart dosent mean there POOR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L3thal Veteran Posted April 23, 2007 Veteran Share Posted April 23, 2007 yEA way to make your self look stupid ! i have a very nice home 3 2005 + cars . and i shop at wal-mart ! why because some on somethings i save cash ! just because people shop at wal-mart dosent mean there POOR Keywords: most of the people. Besides, he is right. If you look at the range of consistent shoppers at Walmart, they tend to be of the lower income bracket which is why Target is whooping Walmart because Target's range of customers are more middle class and their products appeal to the middle class. That is why Walmart is trying to bring better, recognizable brands of clothes and electronics to their stores to attract those customers from Target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDQuiksilver Posted April 23, 2007 Share Posted April 23, 2007 yEA way to make your self look stupid ! i have a very nice home 3 2005 + cars . and i shop at wal-mart ! why because some on somethings i save cash ! just because people shop at wal-mart dosent mean there POOR You're a teen owning three 2005 (or newer) vehicles and a home? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rahul Posted April 23, 2007 Share Posted April 23, 2007 You're a teen owning three 2005 (or newer) vehicles and a home? Actually its Mamas & Daddys house & cars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jexel Posted April 23, 2007 Share Posted April 23, 2007 i just find it funny that here in Australia there has been absolutely no advertisements on any Blu-ray/HD-DVD products. I personally am rooting for HD-DVD since the Matrix Trilogy will definately be released for HD-DVD :) that is my one and only reason for choosing HD-DVD over Blu-ray. I don't really care about which one is better, as long as it's better than DVDs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalMart_Worf Posted April 23, 2007 Share Posted April 23, 2007 http://www.homemediaretailing.com/news/htm...rticle_ID=10557 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inplode Posted April 23, 2007 Share Posted April 23, 2007 You're a teen owning three 2005 (or newer) vehicles and a home? nope sorry im 33 make a great living so YES i own 3 cars 2005 and above and very nice home Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L3thal Veteran Posted April 24, 2007 Veteran Share Posted April 24, 2007 nope sorry im 33 make a great living so YES i own 3 cars 2005 and above and very nice home Like I mentioned above, it doesn't matter whether you make a good living or not. The fact is Walmart is struggling to attract middle-class shoppers that spend more than their main customer base, which are the lower class. Therefore, what he mentioned was indeed correct and again, I will stress my point that he said most people that shop at Walmart and not all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goji Posted April 24, 2007 Share Posted April 24, 2007 The fact is Walmart is struggling to attract middle-class shoppers that spend more than their main customer base, which are the lower class. :yes: How Wal-Mart's TV prices crushed rivals If Wal-mart doesn't watch it, they are going to further widen the gap between lo-fi and hi-fi users. You can only low ball so much for so long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigapixels Veteran Posted April 24, 2007 Veteran Share Posted April 24, 2007 Ignore me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goji Posted April 24, 2007 Share Posted April 24, 2007 Someone needing an e-Hug? :) :hug: :trout: hehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Reid Posted April 24, 2007 Share Posted April 24, 2007 Wow, it sounds like you guys dont want the prices to ever come down, which makes no sense at all. I take it you guys are against me using a coupon at the grocery store too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts