stof said: But more imporantly, now that my VHS has broken, does anybody know if you can still buy new ones? And how much are they?

To my knowledge they've been out of production. The only way I've seen to buy one recently produced these days is to buy a DVD/VCR combo. The cheapest one I've seen was around 60$US. Most major retail stores should have them, Walmart, Kmart, Target etc. 

 

stof said: But more imporantly, now that my VHS has broken, does anybody know if you can still buy new ones? And how much are they?

They still sell dual DVD-VHS players I believe for about $80.  I mean they sell nearly as many VHS tapes as they do HD-DVD and Blu-Ray combined afterall. (If I remember right.)

Edit: Beat to the punch, either way, wake me up when HD-DVD or Blu-ray is out, and the other has over 10% of the movie market. (In otherwords, likely never.)

Entroper said: whatever said: My point was that if you have a 1080p display, for movies it doesn't matter whether the INPUT is 1080i or 1080p. Yes, a 1080p display will look better than a 1080i display. But a 1080p source to a 1080p display will look EXACTLY the same as a 1080i source to a 1080p display. Note that this only applies to movies, because they are encoded at 24fps. But since that's what we are talking about with this player, it definitely applies.   Assuming your 1080p display offers 3:2 pulldown to reconstruct the 1080p image, this is true. I would hope most, if not all, 1080p displays have this, though. Also, while most film material is 24 frames per second, some isn't. A lot of movies have computer generated imagery running at 60 fps, and for that you'd want a 1080p signal.

 I've never heard of CGI info being encoded differently than standard movie content.  Do you know of any movies in particular where this is the case??

whatever said: Entroper said: Assuming your 1080p display offers 3:2 pulldown to reconstruct the 1080p image, this is true. I would hope most, if not all, 1080p displays have this, though. Also, while most film material is 24 frames per second, some isn't. A lot of movies have computer generated imagery running at 60 fps, and for that you'd want a 1080p signal. I've never heard of CGI info being encoded differently than standard movie content. Do you know of any movies in particular where this is the case??

It's not actually encoded differently.  DVDs and high def movies are encoded at 60 fps, but many of the frames are identical because the source material is 24 fps.  Off the top of my head, I recall the canyon run scene from Independence Day appearing to run at a much higher framerate.

There is a lot of hate in this thread. First the hating on format, then the hating on retailers, and then the hating on consumers. You have to stop with it WalMart is a popular chain of stores, because they deliver a better price.

There isn't a type of person that shop at WalMart. Just about everybody shops at WalMart. With only thousands of convenient locations, and for the most part they sell the exact same thing the other guy sells. The reality is that if you shop at WalMart your probably going to save a good deal of money. For many consumers that matters a lot. Saving thousands over a year is crucial for many consumers.

The format really does not matter. The reality has already been presented. Most consumers cannot afford 1080p sets. Where as if your willing to buy a 1080i set you can get a larger screen. I recently purchased my HDTV. I gladly bought a 1080i set. I got a bigger screen within my price range. Had I went with 1080p I would have had to spend a great deal more, or get a much smaller screen. So there is no format argument for the majority of consumers, and price matters so much.

Stop attacking consumers its not the job of an early adopter to support the more expensive format. Early adopters are speculators, and as such they will still veer towards what they think is the safer bet. Many posters are less angry and more scared that the format they were forced to buy into for their console brand may end up being niche. That said too bad thats the price of being an early adopter.

This is just good news a stand alone high definition player breaking the two hundred dollar market will increase adoption. That means the prices can continue to fall faster, and in the end that is good for all of us consumer types. This means with frugal spending a consumer can get a full experience for under a grand. Thats all sorts of wonderful news.

If I could get a HD-DVD player for $200 (as the $AU is approx the $US now), AND get 9(!) free movies with it (does this apply, or partially apply?) - it would be a no-brainer decision for me.

Its all about cost in the end - nothing else really matters.

There are some fantastic titles out for HD DVD right now, and i absolutely do not see the flow stopping until at least the beginning of 2009, as HD DVD will hold its own for now and it has Paramount exclusivity until then. There is even increased speculation of an upset victory over Blu ray or at least permanent co-existence.

So its like Shams said, if this offer was available in Australia, I'd be there with bells on.

It's true that even a lot of rich people shop at Wal-mart. It's part of the reason they stay rich. I mean they found out so many rich people shop there someone opened up a "Rich person's" Walmart where you can get deals by buying mass amounts of fairly expensive wine and the like. Well it's a Walmart/Sams club.

I wonder how that chain ended up doing though, haven't heard of it since it's conecption, so much so that i forgot it's name.

Are you talking about Costco?

Lingyis said: vizunary said:   @lingysis, i see your point with 24fps, but the interlaced display still only has the ability to refresh 540 lines at a time. from all the HD research i've done my understanding is that the video processor in an interlaced display cannot refresh the lines consecutively like progressive scan does. i may be incorrect, but i believe i understand the tech correctly.  well, entroper already answered it.  i'll just repeat in a wordier way. yes, interlaced means half of 1080 lines = 540 lines at a time, and like you said, does not refresh lines like progressive which would be 1080 lines at a time.  however, updates are done at 60 times every second.  this means that for 24fps movies, you have more refreshes than is necessary.  essentially you need to "stretch" each movie frame into either 3 or 2 refreshes, which is what entroper meant by "3:2 pulldown". so your 1080p TV is working with more information than really necessary.  therefore, as long as your TV does the right thing with the signal (which according to some isn't always the case), there would be zero visual difference between a 1080i and a 1080p video ouput source, on 24fps movies.

that does make some sense, i guess i'm not visualising it correctly... i still think that in heavy, fast paced action films(which many use a 60fps signal) there would be a noticeable difference, at least to enthusiasts. you're very probably correct in saying most people would never notice. i happened to notice when i was picking out my tv, then again i can see the red, blue, and green shades on a LCD display and the "rainbow" effect on DLP sets, so i'm not the norm. BTW, you guys thinking this is somehow a death nell for BLU-RAY, think again. the Toshiba A2(this model) has been $199 w/rebate for quite some time alread, it's nothing new, just a little more accessible is all.