Wal-Mart dumps HD DVDs to back Blu-ray

[MilesColtrane]

The war is over.

This should put the final nail in the coffin of HD DVDs.

________________________________________________________________
By Franklin Paul

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc has decided to exclusively sell high-definition DVDs in the Blu-Ray format, dealing what could be a crippling blow to the rival HD DVD technology backed by Toshiba Corp.

The move by the world's largest retailer, announced on Friday, caps a disappointing week for HD DVD supporters, who also saw consumer electronics chain Best Buy Co Inc and online video rental company Netflix Inc defect to the Blu-ray camp.

In a statement on its Web site, Wal-Mart said that over the next few months it will phase out sales of HD DVD systems and discs. By June, it will sell only products in the Blu-ray format which was developed by Sony Corp.

http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSWEN397220080215?feedType=RSS&feedName=technologyNews&rpc=69

[Kolesar]

1. Now we need movies that are worth a hundred minutes of my time

--Mr. Grumpy

[HCE SuiGeneris]

28. That is about what they will cost soon enough!

;-)

[tridim]

2. Great, now when will Blu-Ray players become affordable?

[HysteryDiagnosis]

4. Great, now when will Blu-Ray players become

obsolete as well??

[MissB]

3. I don't know what the distinction is between the two technologies.

Nor do I care, really.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

5. It's sort of like the difference between a perfect picture and

a more perfect picture. Seems to me that it may be all about the $$, but then I could be wrong about the motives behind pushing something that costs 3 times as much.

[Tempest]

12. The true cost of high definition DVDs

In order to truly get any benefits from high definition DVDs you need a 120Mhz HDTV that's bigger than 46". A good brand of one of those will run you $2,700 and up. A 60Mhz HDTV will work, but you'll get movement blur big time.

Then you need to run the DVD player with a high quality HDMI cable, a ten foot one of those runs about $100.

Then to get any decent sound, you need a good quality surround sound system. One of those will run you around $800. And to take real advantage of the sound system, you need to run it through digital optical. A good digital optical cable will run you about $75.

Not too many people can afford a system like that which will take advantage of high def.

[tridim]

22. I bought my HDMI cables for $4/each on Amazon.

I was ~this~ close to buying two expensive cables at Circuit City and thought I should do some online reasearch first. So glad I did. HDMI cables are a digital pipe, they're either all or nothing. So far my $4 cables have worked flawlessly.

I still remember the days when S-Video cables were $50. Now they're about 50 cents each.

[Tempest]

27. I've benchmarked cheap HDMI cables

I've gotten better quality out of my Monster HDMI cables using IEEE benchmarking tools.

[EOTE]

32. Hmmm, but did any humans notice the difference?

Or just the benchmarking tools. If you need tools to perform objective analysis of the difference, then chances are it's such a negligible difference to not be worth it. I've used monoprice HDMI cables on my projector and 100" screen and I noticed absolutely no difference when using my friends very exensive Canare cable. Maybe hardware would say differently, but luckily I watch TV with my eyes and not with benchmarking tools.

[Tempest]

35. I noticed a difference

That's why I checked the benchmarks.

There was a lot less blurring and I wanted to make sure it wasn't just my eyes.

[tridim]

37. And people have also benchmarked $200/ft speaker wire..

and $1000 phonograph cartridges.

I don't have super-human hearing, so I'll just continue buying the cheap versions and laughing at the audiophiles. :)

[HuffleClaw]

40. meep

that is just not right

[dysfunctional press]

23. you need a 1080P resolution to really see the difference.

we sold our house/2-flat in chicago last year, and bought a less-expensive place with more room.

i rewarded myself with a 60" 1080p plasma.

i love it.

[Tempest]

30. They don't make 120Mhz 720p HDTVs

That would be a waste, and make 720p's too expensive.

I should have noted that.

[Tesha]

26. $100 for an HDMI cable? You apparently shop at the wrong places.

http://www.amazon.com/Super-Resolution-Cable-DVI-Gear/dp/B0002L5R78/

HDMI 2M (6 Feet) Super High Resolution Cable by DVI Gear by DVI Gear
Buy new: List: $19.99 Price: $2.14 22 Used & new from $0.95
In Stock
4.6 out of 5 stars (374)





And you can buy-in to Blu-Ray for far less money on
everything else you mentioned, although there's no
doubt that the best HDTVs are still pricey.

Tesha

[Tempest]

29. Look at the IEEE benchmarks for those cheap cables

They don't compare to a good quality cable.

You can buy-in cheaper, but you won't get the benefits. And that's just a waste of money.

[EOTE]

36. Where are these IEEE benchmarks that you speak of?

You do realize that once you reach a certain level of signal to noise ratio that the signal is 100% pristine in the digital domain. Even the cheap cables tend to never dip below that signal to noise ratio. If you have some data that contradicts this, I'd love to see it.

[Tempest]

52. It's available by subscription or by membership

There's several sources on the 'net you can find to subscribe.

I subscribe for the network equipment testing they perform, which is important for my job.

[EOTE]

55. So they don't exist?

I assume if they existed, you'd provide a source for them. If you need to actually pay money to be told that some esoteric (or non-existent) technology is superior to far cheaper and just as functional technology, it sounds like you've been taken in once again. Can you just give me the gist of the reports? Like what percentage of the pristine signal is present on the cheap cables vs. the super expensive cables? You should be able to at least provide something.

[Tempest]

60. You obviously have no clue on the cost of testing electronics

Otherwise you would have never made such an ignorant statement.

It's obvious you didn't do a simple Google search as well.


You'd rather be angry at someone for some reason. I hope that works out for you.

[EOTE]

62. And what should I google search for oh wise one?

I'm not angry at all, I'd just like for you to admit that you're wrong. Of course, if you're willing to provide even a single link indicating you're right, I'd bow before your superior wisdom. Now, can you tell me ANYTHING to back up what you've said, or are you just going to use snarkyness to shadow the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about? Please tell me what to search google for? Because everything I find on google (minus what the companies selling $200 cables have to say) in addition to what my eyes tell me is that all the buzzwords that monster and similar companies use to sell HDMI cables are absolutely meaningless because you're dealing with an all digital signal.

[EOTE]

64. Oh, wait, I did it myself.

Did a google search for cheap vs. expensive HDMI cables. Guess what? The first dozen or so links mesh completely with what I've been saying and completely contradict what you've been saying. Thank you, google is a very powerful tool. Heck, being the gentleman I am, I'll even be so kind as to provide links:

http://www.digg.com/gaming_news/Beware_the_HDMI_Cable_scam
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/deals/hdmi-cable-price-gouging-180281.php
and let's see what those idiots at popular mechanics have to say:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/upgrade/4235717.html

and here, to be completely objective the only article I could find that even somewhat enforces what you've said. Their consensus, even using complex machinery, the only time differences were noticed between the cheap cables and the cables which cost more than 10x as much came from displaying formats WHICH CURRENTLY DON'T EXIST, or over very long distances. Sorry man, but you got taken in.

[Tesha]

38. Digital is digital. Do you put green magic marker on your CDs as well?

If the bits get through at all, you get an image and
sound just as good as anyone gets.

Tesha

[EOTE]

31. Hogwash.

Anyone with a standard high def television set will notice a huge benefit from upgrade to an HD optical format. 720P or 1080i look far superior to the 480P of progressive scan DVDs. A large 1080P set is needed to resolve all of HD-DVD and Blu-ray's resolution, but it's certainly not required. Also, the difference between 60mhz and 120mhz on 1080P sets is negligible. You might notice a slight difference on fast action scenes, but nothing noticeable. As the other poster noted, if you spend more than $5 on an HDMI cable, you're foolish. Spend $100 and you just wasted 95 bucks. Same thing for a digital optical cable. Spend money on good build quality, not on all that esoteric BS that monster cable tries to sell. Try doing a blind A/B test on various optical cables (I have)dollars to donuts that you can't tell the difference. Same thing with using 75 ohm coaxial cable to transmit digital audio. There are plenty of good ones for under ten bucks. There's not as huge of a difference in sound quality upgrading to an HD format as there is in terms of picture quality, but it's still there. Unless you're using a standard def set and integrated speakers, you'll notice a big difference by upgrading. On my projector and home made system, the difference is VAST.

[Tempest]

33. You're missing the point

The point is anyone going to HDTV is better off, at least until Blu-ray prices come down, sticking with an upconvert DVD player for less than $100.

You can stick with your cheap cables, but I subscribe to IEEE benchmarks and they show you get what you pay for in quality.


the difference between 60mhz and 120mhz on 1080P sets is negligible

Anyone who makes that statement has never done any serious comparisons with HD movies or sporting events. It makes a world of difference for sports, especially racing.

[EOTE]

41. Upconvert DVD players are a sham.

I get better picture quality using my 480P Sony player than I have seen on any upconverting DVD player (including the OPPO ones). All upconverting players do is change the DVD resolution to whatever the native resolution of your set is. Chances are, if you've got a decent TV, the TV's built in scaler does a better job. I can say without a doubt that my projectors scaler does a far better job than any upconverting player. I haven't seen any upconverting DVD player come close to producing a picture that I'd consider 'hi-def'. Once again, my progressive scan Sony produces the best images I've seen from a standard DVD player, but it still falls way short of hi-def. And yes, I've seen much material in 120mhz on 1080P sets. On football, I noticed little to no difference. Both were extremely smooth and fluid. Never seen racing in HD though, there are no stations in my area that provide it.

[Tempest]

53. If you haven't seen it in HD

Then you're not talking about the same thing I am.

Thanks for the attitude, though. I hope you enjoy your evening of hostility.

[EOTE]

59. I haven't seen racing in HD.

So if I haven't seen the one sport that apparently benefits from 120mhz (when the source material doesn't even exist right now), I'm not on the same page that you're on? And the attitude I'm giving is because you're talking out of your ass. Making up all this BS about esoteric cables so you can convince yourself that you made a wise purchase. Once again, I implore you to show me a single objective testing that shows the superiority of these cables vs. a standard HDMI cable. And if you tell me that I need to pay to see these results again, I'll laugh at you. That will be the equivalent of you telling me that not only are you willing to waste $100 on a cable, but then you're willing to pay a website to help justify your purchase. Once again, everything is pristine in the digital domain.

[EOTE]

42. And I'd still love to see these benchmarks.

You know, the ones that show if you purchase a $200 HDMI cable, you'll resolve 99.9999% throughput as opposed to the 99.999% throughput of the $5 cable.

[Tesha]

47. Even if you didn't have an HDTV now, for some folks, buying the Blu-Ray player...

Even if you didn't have an HDTV now, for some folks,
buying the Blu-Ray player and switching your purchasing
from DVD to Blu-Ray might make sense. That way you're
buying your movies in a format that will definitely
give you a better image someday when you "move up"
to HDTV.

We're thinking about doing this now that the format
wars are ending.

Tesha

[Tempest]

58. If you buy into Blu-ray now without HDTV

You're wasting your money.

And even with HDTV, if you don't have 1080p, you're wasting your money buying into it now.

Sony recently announced production cost reductions for the Blu-ray players which will drop the price of the units.

[Tesha]

61. No, you're investing in your future viewing pleasure.

Unless you're *NEVER* going to move up to Blu-Ray
and Hi-def.

Tesha

[EOTE]

68. Another ridiculous contradiction.

First you say that people should stick with an upconverting DVD player for less than a hundred bucks, then you say that you need expensive cables in order for it to be a decent investment. Tell you what, pick up an HD-DVD player for 120 bucks and couple that with a $5 HDMI cable. Now take the best upconverting DVD player you can find and pair it up with the most expensive HDMI cable you can find. Not only will the HD-DVD setup look immensely superior to the upconverting player, but the whole setup will cost you less than just the cable of the other setup. The source material is far, far more important than any A/V cable is.

[Tesha]

45. It's funny; we're using a perfectly-ordinary audio cable as a S/PDIF cable.

> Try doing a blind A/B test on various optical cables
> (I have)dollars to donuts that you can't tell the
> difference. Same thing with using 75 ohm coaxial
> cable to transmit digital audio.

It's funny; in our family-room setup, we're using
a perfectly-ordinary audio cable as a S/PDIF cable.
It works because S/PDIF has a data rate somewhere
below 10MHz so the shortest wavelength is in the
30M (100 foot) range so our 18" cable practically
doesn't even exist. If it had the world's worst
VSWR, the bits would still get through.

Tesha

[EOTE]

46. Yep, if it provides 75 ohms resistance, any RCA cable will do.

I've pulled apart stereo RCA cables to use one as a digital coax cable in a pinch. Probably cost about a buck overall and did the trick just fine. It wouldn't be a permanent solution for me as the build quality was shoddy, but even my fairly critical ears couldn't tell the difference between that and the more expensive optical cable I had. I love audio and video, it's a huge passion of mine. But all this esoteric crap with super expensive cables and such is such a detriment to the hobbyist. It encourages people to spend ridiculous sums of money on all the wrong things.

[Tesha]

48. That's my point -- this isn't even a controlled-impedance cable.

That's my point -- this isn't even a controlled-
impedance cable! It's just that it's so short
compared to the wavelength that it doesn't make
any difference. Aww heck, maybe someday I'll
hook it up the TDR and see how it rings out...

Tesha

[EOTE]

51. I guess I assumed most analog audio cables were 75 ohm too.

I'm so accustomed to getting my RCAs from those 5 RCA bundles (3 for component video and 2 for analog stereo) and noticed that they use the same cable for audio as they do for video. I guess they do that just for manufacturing and convenience issue. I've never bothered hooking up any of my RCAs up to my VOM :).

[Tesha]

56. You can't use a VOM.

A DC meter won't give you the answer you're looking
for. With a VOM, all cables will measure "open circuit"
from center conductor to shield and short circuit from
one end's center conductor to the other end's center
conductor (and the same end-to-end for the shield).

To measure the AC impedance, you need specialized
instruments. The best is a TDR, a "Time-Domain
Reflectometer":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-domain_reflectometer

Tesha

[tridim]

6. It's just a new Betamax vs VHS war, and blu-ray just won

It doesn't really matter unless you were an early adopter of HD-DVD.

Truth is, upscaling DVD players are dirt cheap (About $40) and look awesome. I wont upgrade unless and until the price goes below about $80.

[dysfunctional press]

8. i wonder how much money sony put into pay-offs this time around?

i don't think they would have liked a second consumer-market technology loss.

[Tempest]

15. Well, they gave Warner Brothers $150 million

And Wal-Mart doesn't come cheap, just what they sell.

[taught_me_patience]

19. Try closer to 400 million n/t

[Tempest]

20. The official figure is $150 million

The truth is somewhere in between.

[taught_me_patience]

21. Paramount got $100+ to go HD DVD

Warner is triple their size. The "official" figure of 150 million is not even close.

[MissB]

9. Thank you for putting it in term that I could understand.

:rofl: I swear I feel so old at times, and I'm only in my 30s.

[OwnedByFerrets]

11. Or even a late adapter, as I was....

there are still lots of lots of great HD-DVD movies available, and the upconversion on my A-35 is fantastic. I will be purple when the price of Blu-Ray comes down to a reasonable cost for mr average.

[Tempest]

7. Good news for me

Now I can add to my HD collection at less than half the cost.

[dysfunctional press]

10. so true...

i may have to pick up an hd-dvd player just for that reason.

[Tempest]

14. You can get an HD player for $119 now

I've got the HD add-on for my Xbox 360.

I also have a PS3, so I don't care who wins as long as prices of DVDs drops.

[Tempest]

13. Let's keep things in perspective. High def DVDs are less than 1% of the market

Standard DVDs rule the market and will for many years to come.

Upconvert DVDs give 1080i quality on 720p HDTVs, which is more quality than most people want. And at a much lower cost.

[Yael]

16. Is there a DVD to BlueRay converter?

Ticks me off that we now have to go out and buy a whole new freakin' machine. Again.

Is there that much difference between DVD and BlueRay?

[Tempest]

17. There's only a difference if you fork out the dough

See my post # 12.

[Yael]

24. Thanks!

[Tempest]

18. Here's a big Blu-Ray gotcha

Current (and immediate future) owners of stand-alone Blu-ray players will not play the special features on Blu-ray DVDs once the 2.0 profile is approved later this year. The players are on profile 1.0.

The only Blu-ray players that can be upgraded via firmware are PS3 owners.

This is something every Blu-ray adopter needs to know.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

34. Early adopters always pay an exorbitant price.

I prefer to come in a little later in a product's life cycle.

[MonkeyFunk]

65. That's an argument for getting

a Playstation 3 - its firmware can be upgraded.

[Junkdrawer]

69. Self delete - posted wrong spot

[iamthebandfanman]

25. *sigh* this makes me miss beta tapes...

lol
but seriously,
i think alot of people expected this to happen.

sony has always been so innovative when its come to video formats.

[Tempest]

39. Sony has been innovative, but almost all failures

Betamax, UMD, mini-disk, digital-8, Micro-DV, DCC, ATRAC3, their on-line music store, etc.

The only thing that caught on was the 3.5" floppy disk, and now Blu-ray.

[iamthebandfanman]

43. that is true

but hey, i still video cameras that use a couple of those ;)

i thought sony had come up with the DVD too, but just a different version that wasnt used(they all agreed toshibas format of dvd was better)... but i guess that was wrong.

[Tesha]

49. Beta (and its derivatives) was wildly successful in the broadcast news market. (NT)

[Tempest]

54. Which has nothing to do with the consumer market

And which is what the topic of this thread is about.

[Tesha]

57. So you say. I thought it was about Blu-Ray kicking HD-DVD's metaphorical butt. (NT)

[Occulus]

73. You forgot the Sony Playstation n/t

[supernova]

44. So, is Blue-Ray the new VHS?

or did Betamax really win this time around?

[Tesha]

50. Blu-Ray is clearly the technically-superior format. VHS wasn't. (NT)

[tridim]

63. Except for the tape length.

I think that's why Beta failed.

[Tesha]

66. Precisely correct. VHS was first with a "single cassette" full-length movie.

And that made all the difference.

Tesha

[ShaneGR]

67. Reality is this is positioning for the future, a very small percentage have HD or Blueray DVD player

Let alone an HD TV. I have one, I spent a lot of money for it, but I don't have an HD or Blueray DVD player.

[Junkdrawer]

70. Seen this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywWfmRdOmJ0

[OwnedByFerrets]

71. That is absolutely brilliant...

thank you for sharing.:rofl:

[MilesColtrane]

72. And now, it's practically all but official.

Toshiba to give up on HD DVD, end format war: source

By Mayumi Negishi and Kentaro Hamada

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

-snip-

A source at Toshiba confirmed an earlier report by public broadcaster NHK that it was getting ready to pull the plug.

"We have entered the final stage of planning to make our exit from the next generation DVD business," said the source, who asked not to be identified. He added that an official announcement could come as early as next week.


http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssConsumerGoodsAndRetailNews/idUSL1643184420080216