Blu Ray over/under $

Based on December 2005 The Perfect Vsion Gary Mearson article, many of the 1080P displays are not capable of truely displaying 1080P signal or receieveing it. HDMI is as yet an unsettled standard and true costs of any upgraded format and players are yet to be seen.

I am sayin that a current DVD on a decent display with a decent DVD player si really good. A Hi Def DVD may not be better enough in Picture quality for people to feel they need to purchase anything other than what they purchase or rent now.

Blu ray will be the greatest thing since sliced bread. Why? Because with a 1080p, TV will look better then real life. Why would you be happy buying DVDs knowing the limitations of the picture compared to HD if you know the difference. I have a Mitsubiti Dimond 55-909 which has the best movie picture posable and a Denon 2800MkII DVD player with DVDO chip set so my picture is just about the best possable from DVD. Comcast HD blows this away and the Comcast signel is only 15mhz out of a possable 19mhz. Canon has a new TV coming out later this year that will outdate everything else available. Samsung is coming out with a $300 universal player there will play all HD formats and DVDs. The movie companys want a new format that will protect their property better. Sony is coming out with the new Playstation with Blu ray included. HD-DVDs will include DVD on the flip side so only only one disk will work in new and old machines. So tell me this will someone. Just where is the downside to all this?

Rysa4, I don't get your point.
I stated that there's NOT going to be a mass exodus anytime soon to any new DVD format, IMO. The players will indeed have more potential on the right monitor, over standard DVD, this is certain! And yes, I've seen the demo's at the shows. On a small monitor, the difference is more subtle, of course. Still, my point is that DVD already WORKS for the average consumer superbly! Only those setup for large screen dedicated movies (projector setups and large display close-up scenarios) will get a big benefit, in the right circumstances.
I was simply stating that whatever is coming down the pike will be what we get, that's it. I'm sure it will be all nice in the end.
Anything else you were trying to sell me?

As for the better audio capability issue, I really seriously doubt anyone on a grand scale cares so much! I mean, A BIG FAT FRACTION OF A PERCENT of the buying public ever even heard an SACD or DVDA disc, let alone even know they exist! Crappy old 16/44 CD's are now like 25 years old already, and that's all they mostly still sell at the stores!
I hardly think anyone ready for DVD HD is really going "wow, the audio should be great!"...That is, except for us few audiophile minority.
That all said, I think this is a great counter to the long standing thread here about 2 channel being better than multi-channel!!! Here we have the public at large rejecting old super sounding analog records and high rez SACD/DVDA audio discs, and basically only caring about cd and download Ipod music stash!!! However, audio upgrades to overmixed, foley-effect laden synthetic movie soundtracks on DVD, specfically higher rez DD/DTS, are what seems to be most important!
Let's face it, 2 channel may or may not be great on a good recording, but everyone else in the world only cares about their "surroundy sound" system and DVD movie playback soundquality it seems. Otherwise the industries wants things to be that way evidently

warner and universal still rule the software world. ad paramount and dreamworks to the hddvd list too.