Price of the Sony VX2100

Mike Rehmus · November 27th, 2007, 09:22 PM

The problem for most of the 'guys' is that they cannot afford a new TV unless the current unit dies. Too many people could not afford the $180 HD DVD player you cite let alone have a DVR at any resolution. They have to pay for $60 tanks of gas to go to work in a car that costs at least a few thousand if it is well used and hundreds of dollars per month to pay for heating their houses.

The hierarchy of needs puts television down many levels from safety, food, shelter which are well above the need for a TV.

You are correct, they can get just as much enjoyment out of a SD football game on their 20 inch CRT analog TV as anyone else can on their 70 inch HD flat-screen.

Again I say we are in the minority when it comes to buying high-end video toys. Most of the world cannot afford HD.

That isn't to say that our client base won't pay for HD, but an HD-only client base is much smaler than the available SD client base.

Jeff Harper · November 28th, 2007, 01:13 AM

I don't have cable, I have an antennae. My new $500 dollar HDTV gets channels I didn't even know existed in my area. Plus, I am getting HD (and much is widescreen also) content from every local network affiliate. I didn't even buy the set for HD, but my God, the quality is fantastic, and the reception is twice as good. I can't stand to look at SD anymore, and that is after only one day of having the set. I leave it on just to marvel at the image.

One local PBS station has multiple broadcasts (six!) happening on sub-channels, including movies during the day. It's insane.

And this is all happening in Cincinnati, where we are behind in everything.

All I know is:

1. You can buy HD tvs for $499 and less, not great ones, but still HD.
2. SD looks like crap after viewing HD.
3. I can hardly look at my own SD projects after getting a taste of HD.
4. HD and BluRay are dropping as well, and will continue to do so.

DVD took over VHS very quickly once it took off. It was gradual at first, but once it caught on, it seemed almost overnight everyone had a DVD player. Because adopting HD all the way is more expensive than purchasing a DVD player, it won't be overnight, but prices are dropping dramatically.

All in all, I think my original prediction was a bit too soon, mainly because of the HD-BluRay thing needing to get sorted out, which is at least a year off I imagine. And even though I'm lovin' this HD, I have no intention of getting a player right now. So that definitely will slow things down, as some of you have said.

Bill Grant · November 29th, 2007, 08:20 AM

I honestly haven't seen much difference in the quality between a standard DVD upconvert and blu-ray. My friend has a blu-ray player, and we've watched a few movies on blu-ray there. I can't really see a difference. The source medium is the same(film) and until they start to shoot these things in HD then I don't think the difference will be there. I think if the DVD to bluray difference were as big as the VHS to DVD difference, then we'd see some movement. It just isn't there. I, in fact, would say that most things look worse in blu-ray than standard DVD. There seems to be more grain, etc.
opinions and all that.
Bill

November 27th, 2007, 09:22 PM	#16
Mike Rehmus Wrangler Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vallejo, California Posts: 4,049	The problem for most of the 'guys' is that they cannot afford a new TV unless the current unit dies. Too many people could not afford the $180 HD DVD player you cite let alone have a DVR at any resolution. They have to pay for $60 tanks of gas to go to work in a car that costs at least a few thousand if it is well used and hundreds of dollars per month to pay for heating their houses. The hierarchy of needs puts television down many levels from safety, food, shelter which are well above the need for a TV. You are correct, they can get just as much enjoyment out of a SD football game on their 20 inch CRT analog TV as anyone else can on their 70 inch HD flat-screen. Again I say we are in the minority when it comes to buying high-end video toys. Most of the world cannot afford HD. That isn't to say that our client base won't pay for HD, but an HD-only client base is much smaler than the available SD client base. __________________ Mike Rehmus Hey, I can see the carrot at the end of the tunnel!

November 28th, 2007, 01:13 AM	#17
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	I don't have cable, I have an antennae. My new $500 dollar HDTV gets channels I didn't even know existed in my area. Plus, I am getting HD (and much is widescreen also) content from every local network affiliate. I didn't even buy the set for HD, but my God, the quality is fantastic, and the reception is twice as good. I can't stand to look at SD anymore, and that is after only one day of having the set. I leave it on just to marvel at the image. One local PBS station has multiple broadcasts (six!) happening on sub-channels, including movies during the day. It's insane. And this is all happening in Cincinnati, where we are behind in everything. All I know is: 1. You can buy HD tvs for $499 and less, not great ones, but still HD. 2. SD looks like crap after viewing HD. 3. I can hardly look at my own SD projects after getting a taste of HD. 4. HD and BluRay are dropping as well, and will continue to do so. DVD took over VHS very quickly once it took off. It was gradual at first, but once it caught on, it seemed almost overnight everyone had a DVD player. Because adopting HD all the way is more expensive than purchasing a DVD player, it won't be overnight, but prices are dropping dramatically. All in all, I think my original prediction was a bit too soon, mainly because of the HD-BluRay thing needing to get sorted out, which is at least a year off I imagine. And even though I'm lovin' this HD, I have no intention of getting a player right now. So that definitely will slow things down, as some of you have said.

November 29th, 2007, 08:20 AM	#18
Bill Grant Major Player Join Date: May 2005 Location: Columbia,SC Posts: 806	I honestly haven't seen much difference in the quality between a standard DVD upconvert and blu-ray. My friend has a blu-ray player, and we've watched a few movies on blu-ray there. I can't really see a difference. The source medium is the same(film) and until they start to shoot these things in HD then I don't think the difference will be there. I think if the DVD to bluray difference were as big as the VHS to DVD difference, then we'd see some movement. It just isn't there. I, in fact, would say that most things look worse in blu-ray than standard DVD. There seems to be more grain, etc. opinions and all that. Bill