Monday, October 29th 2007

Wal-Mart Stocks $200 HD-DVD Players

While Blu-Ray may be getting more sales as of late, HD-DVD proprietors have a figurative ace-in-the-hole. They know that regardless of how good a product is, nobody's going to get it if it is not reasonably priced. And so, they are trying to get an HD-DVD player into customers' homes by offering players at $200 at Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is currently stocking said HD-DVD players, and will formally begin selling them on November 3rd.

Source: DailyTech
Add your own comment

23 Comments on Wal-Mart Stocks $200 HD-DVD Players

#1
jocksteeluk
it is about time the Hd-Dvd lobby did something but personally i still see the 40gig ps3 as a better value.
Posted on Reply
#2
Mediocre
Didn't this same exact 'press release' come out last year and turn out to be false?

Wait, I think I remember. It was a 'press release' about walmart committing to buy thousands of HD players and sell them. Walmart eventually denied the rumors...

Well, 12 months later (and with pictures this time), maybe its time?

Hope they have HDMI ports :laugh: would be silly without 'em :D
Posted on Reply
#3
DaMulta
My stars went supernova
HD-DVD FTW

I will buy a HD player now:)
Posted on Reply
#4
Mediocre
apparently this has been in the works for a while. The 'press release' i mentioned was from April of this year http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6438105.html http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,2122715,00.asp

Wonder if it's still 2 million units?

'Tis a great price, but if it won't play regular DVD's as well as HD-DVD's I don't know that it will be received too well. I mean who wants another player to go with their cable box and existing dvd player? My entertainment center has enough crap already.
Posted on Reply
#5
bruins004
This is a lil old.
There has been plenty of posts on this on Slickdeals.net

The HD-DVD player has been going for around $180-200.
However, please note that these HD-DVD players are not 1080p ones.
They are 720p / 1080i.

Here are the links to the posts about them

Amazon
http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=0&t=641667

Wallmart
http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=0&t=638879

Circuit City
http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=0&t=640125
Posted on Reply
#6
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
Just some interesting facts I would like to point out.

1.) This HD-DVD Player is already available at the sub-$200 price point at Circuit City. Link

2.) This HD-DVD player doesn't due "true" high definition output. It only does 1080i, not 1080p. I put true in quotation marks simply because it is a marketing scam. Unless you are sitting right up next to your TV you won't be able to tell the difference between 1080i and 1080p in movies. However, people really do think there is a big difference, with people spending large amounts of money on TVs that push 1080p down their throats having a HD-DVD player that doesn't support it isn't worth it to them. But then again, people spending large amounts of money on TVs probably aren't looking to skimp on the player.

3.) It does have an HDMI connection.
Posted on Reply
#7
Mediocre
by: newtekie1
Just some interesting facts I would like to point out.

1.) This HD-DVD Player is already available at the sub-$200 price point at Circuit City. Link

2.) This HD-DVD player doesn't due "true" high definition output. It only does 1080i, not 1080p. I put true in quotation marks simply because it is a marketing scam. Unless you are sitting right up next to your TV you won't be able to tell the difference between 1080i and 1080p in movies. However, people really do think there is a big difference, with people spending large amounts of money on TVs that push 1080p down their throats having a HD-DVD player that doesn't support it isn't worth it to them. But then again, people spending large amounts of money on TVs probably aren't looking to skimp on the player.

3.) It does have an HDMI connection.
Not to change topics, or hijack the post...

AFAIK, not a single 1080i TV does 1900x1080. Only 1080p one do (I know 1080i is supposed to be by 1900x1080)
1080p also means it's progressive, so it does 60fps as opposed to 30. You WILL see the difference there in an action packed scene or game (at least I saw a difference)

So AFAIK, 1080i TV's are only capable of 1366x768 where as my 1080p does 1920x1080 (as well as 1600x1200 :D)...mind you I had a 1080i TV and it only did 1366x768..

I'm interested to see if this player does 1366x768 or 1920x1080 at the '1080i' output...
Posted on Reply
#8
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
My Sony does 1900x1080 and it is only 1080i.

1080i TVs all do 1900x1080, otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to use the 1080i claim.

However, some only allow you to use that resolution through certain connections.

My old 1080i LCD only did 1080i through the HDMI port, if I used Component connections it only did 720p.

With movies, they are only running at 30FPS anyway, and 1080i is displaying at 60FPS. So every frame is displayed twice. On 1080p the image is just shown twice, but on 1080i the even lines are shown first then the odds, which means the whole frame is shown. So there really is no noticeable difference between 1080p and 1080i when watching movies.

I have 2 60" Sony TVs. One is 1080i and the other is 1080p(I bought the 1080i first then went to buy the same TV again and it had been replaced by the 1080p model for the same price). I watch Blu-Ray and HD-DVD movies on both, and when sitting at a reasonable distance away from them(~15 feet) I can't tell the difference between 1080i and 1080p.
Posted on Reply
#9
Mediocre
by: newtekie1
My Sony does 1900x1080 and it is only 1080i.

1080i TVs all do 1900x1080, otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to use the 1080i claim.

However, some only allow you to use that resolution through certain connections.

My old 1080i LCD only did 1080i through the HDMI port, if I used Component connections it only did 720p.

With movies, they are only running at 30FPS anyway, and 1080i is displaying at 60FPS. So every frame is displayed twice. On 1080p the image is just shown twice, but on 1080i the even lines are shown first then the odds, which means the whole frame is shown. So there really is no noticeable difference between 1080p and 1080i when watching movies.

I have 2 60" Sony TVs. One is 1080i and the other is 1080p(I bought the 1080i first then went to buy the same TV again and it had been replaced by the 1080p model for the same price). I watch Blu-Ray and HD-DVD movies on both, and when sitting at a reasonable distance away from them(~15 feet) I can't tell the difference between 1080i and 1080p.
That really only applies to movies (i guess thats what this thread is about :laugh:)

As for conventional TV (or DTV through the cable line):
by:
Standard frame or field rates
  • 23.976p (allow easy conversion to NTSC)
  • 24p (cinematic film)
  • 25p (PAL
    If you're a gamer, then there is a difference, as 1080p/60 from a computer can be 60 different frames per second (instead of 24 different frames per second doubled and tripled, as with movie content). It is unlikely that native 1080p/60 content will ever be broadcast or distributed in wide numbers.
So as far as I can tell, with a movie, its a moot point. They look the same (because of the up-convert, and the FPS that a movie is recorded at)
But for 'live' TV, or DTV:
A 'i' TV would interlace ONE 'scene' two frames where a 'p' would have TWO 'scenes' for two frames...

Am I getting close??? Thanks for the education on this though :toast:
Posted on Reply
#10
effmaster
by: newtekie1
My Sony does 1900x1080 and it is only 1080i.

1080i TVs all do 1900x1080, otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to use the 1080i claim.
Hmmmmmm Hitachi seems to disagree with you on that one:laugh::laugh:;);)

http://www.6ave.com/shop/product.aspx?sku=HIT55HDX99

booyah only 1024x1080i

Theres another false advertisement forya when you see a sign on the box that says 1080i on it and not the other resolution pixel size. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

You gotta be careful with stuff like that my freind
Posted on Reply
#11
Mediocre
I wasn't going to go shopping or anything, but IMHO I've NEVER seen a 1080i TV with resolution higher than 1366x768...Then again, I only shop on newegg...

It always disturbed me a bit. I mean 1080 means 1080 vertical lines...I had always thought those TV's (that say 1080i but only display 1366x768) weren't really 1080, but only 1080 'compatible'....Still don't know if I'm correct with that assumption :wtf:
Posted on Reply
#12
Steevo
Displaying material at more lines or resolutin than you have is retarded.



720P looks better at fast paced scenes than 1080i due to the interlacing lines being shown, I notice them, both on my lcd and on my DLP projector. I honestly hope that this kills the overpiced and overhyped blu-ray crap that Sony is trying to force on us again.


No matter what resolution you have compression kills it before you get your hands on it anyway, and who wants extra picture in picture crap that they think we want that takes up all the extra space on these discs anyway? Who remembers multi-angle for DVD, very few, and who actually used it in a movie? One more. DTS, superior sound, but few used it.



It has nothing to do with what is truly better, just what is cheaper, and easier to use. Consumers have spoken, that is why e-machines are so popular, cheap, easy to assemble, and crap.
Posted on Reply
#13
Mediocre
by: Steevo
Displaying material at more lines or resolutin than you have is retarded.
What? :confused: Not sure what you're on about...

by: Steevo

720P looks better at fast paced scenes than 1080i due to the interlacing lines being shown, I notice them, both on my lcd and on my DLP projector.
Interlacing lines? Not sure what those are...Thought the 'i' for interlacing was more of an 'even' and 'odd' thing. First frame is even 'lines', next fram is odd 'lines'
by: Steevo

I honestly hope that this kills the overpiced and overhyped blu-ray crap that Sony is trying to force on us again.
How is blu-ray crap and HD-DVD not crap? Strictly by price? Aren't they the same resolution? Doesn't one disk hold more info than the other? Just wondering what makes that a valid argument :D

by: Steevo

No matter what resolution you have compression kills it before you get your hands on it anyway, and who wants extra picture in picture crap that they think we want that takes up all the extra space on these discs anyway? Who remembers multi-angle for DVD, very few, and who actually used it in a movie? One more. DTS, superior sound, but few used it.
I agree here. But I'm not sure its compressed the way it reads above. Its compressed by # of frame rates, NOT in resolution. Movies are 24fps, and AFAIK 1080i is 1080 (at least thats what it seems it SHOULD be)

by: Steevo

It has nothing to do with what is truly better, just what is cheaper, and easier to use. Consumers have spoken, that is why e-machines are so popular, cheap, easy to assemble, and crap.
This has ALWAYS been true....


hope the tone doesn't come out all wrong. Its hard to convey a tone in a discussion. I'm not trying to argue, just want to understand your arguement :toast:
Posted on Reply
#14
Steevo
by: Mediocre
What? :confused: Not sure what you're on about...



Interlacing lines? Not sure what those are...Thought the 'i' for interlacing was more of an 'even' and 'odd' thing. First frame is even 'lines', next fram is odd 'lines'


How is blu-ray crap and HD-DVD not crap? Strictly by price? Aren't they the same resolution? Doesn't one disk hold more info than the other? Just wondering what makes that a valid argument :D



I agree here. But I'm not sure its compressed the way it reads above. Its compressed by # of frame rates, NOT in resolution. Movies are 24fps, and AFAIK 1080i is 1080 (at least thats what it seems it SHOULD be)



This has ALWAYS been true....


hope the tone doesn't come out all wrong. Its hard to convey a tone in a discussion. I'm not trying to argue, just want to understand your arguement :toast:
Blu-ray is more expensive, scratches easier, and has more issues than HD-DVD does, however all the extra crap they put in each is still workthless to 90% of consumers. No one I know watches the extras. No one watches the additional footage. So it is stupid to have it.
Posted on Reply
#15
d44ve
by: Steevo
Blu-ray is more expensive, scratches easier, and has more issues than HD-DVD does, however all the extra crap they put in each is still workthless to 90% of consumers. No one I know watches the extras. No one watches the additional footage. So it is stupid to have it.
I do.....
Posted on Reply
#16
Jizzler
by: d44ve
I do.....
Same here. Even the bonus footage on the LOTR discs! It's about as long as the movie itself :D


As for low-cost HD-DVD players, if they're anything like low-cost DVD players (~$30) then no thanks!
Posted on Reply
#17
Mediocre
As far as the extras and stuff, I watch that almost EVERY time. I love seeing funny out-takes, deleted scenes, and alternate endings.

I'm not a materials engineer, so I have no idea about the durability of blu-ray v. hd-dvd...

The big difference I see (from when DVD's first came out) is that these are NOT just movies. They are also a new type of storage medium, so GB per disk is something you HAVe to factor.

If I remember correctly, DVD's became HUGE as a 'movie' medium prior to being able to burn them on you PC...oh and the early 1x and 2x DVD burners were $500+

I don't know ATM...Despite all the rhetoric, NO ONE KNOWS. It's obvious SOMEONE will win, but I'm gonna stay away from sweeping generalizations, price bashing, and corporate bashing until I see a real reason to. IMO these are two competing mediums each with their own nuiances.


I mean you can say RIGHT NOW that C2D is better than socket 939 (used that so ppl don't flame) because they are FASTER and that's what matters in CPU. And you STILL have people fighting. I mean there are BENCHMARKS and INDISPUTABLE proof that C2D is faster, yet people will still flame over it.

You don't have a metric like that for a movie player that doubles as a storage medium. AFAIK the important trait is the same. They play movies in the same resolution...
Posted on Reply
#18
WarEagleAU
Bird of Prey
200 bucks is nice, though Id like to see it in the 100 dollar range. I wont really have need for an HD DVD player until the HD DVD burners come out, which they havent. I certainly dont watch Blu-Ray movies on my ps3, only because I dont think paying 30 bucks for a movie is worth it, I dont care how much stuff comes with it.
Posted on Reply
#20
OnBoard
by: Steevo
...No one I know watches the extras. No one watches the additional footage. So it is stupid to have it.
by: Jizzler
Same here. Even the bonus footage on the LOTR discs! It's about as long as the movie itself :D


As for low-cost HD-DVD players, if they're anything like low-cost DVD players (~$30) then no thanks!
Tell me about it :D I still have The Two Towers and The Return of The Kings bonus features to watch. Run out of steam once making a trilogy day out of them.

Oh and I always buy 2 DVD Special Edition versions of movies, if available. It just little extra and you get a whole lot of extra. Deleted scenes are already worth the price and anything making of the movie or cast intervies are great. Sure the movie is the main think, but extras are a close second for me.

About the player, it will upscale DVDs to 720p, so that would be nice. Now I have 480p out from component and TV does the upscaling. Really comes down to which does the job better. Pity I have HDMI used to output computer image and only 1xHDMI, so would have to buy a splitter, or I could use component for that too. Not that I'm buying one anytime soon, but nice to know prices are coming down.
Posted on Reply
#21
Wile E
Power User
by: Mediocre
I wasn't going to go shopping or anything, but IMHO I've NEVER seen a 1080i TV with resolution higher than 1366x768...Then again, I only shop on newegg...

It always disturbed me a bit. I mean 1080 means 1080 vertical lines...I had always thought those TV's (that say 1080i but only display 1366x768) weren't really 1080, but only 1080 'compatible'....Still don't know if I'm correct with that assumption :wtf:
You're correct. It just means it can accept a 1080i input. It scales it to 720 tho. Just stick with 720p on the 1366x768 sets, it looks better.

And there are 1080i TVs that have 1080 lines of resolution.
Posted on Reply
#22
effmaster
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I know thats exactly what I said Here_____________vvvvvvvvvv

by: effmaster
Hmmmmmm Hitachi seems to disagree with you on that one:laugh::laugh:;);)

http://www.6ave.com/shop/product.aspx?sku=HIT55HDX99

booyah only 1024x1080i

Theres another false advertisement forya when you see a sign on the box that says 1080i on it and not the other resolution pixel size. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

You gotta be careful with stuff like that my freind
Posted on Reply
#23
effmaster
by: WarEagleAU
200 bucks is nice, though Id like to see it in the 100 dollar range. I wont really have need for an HD DVD player until the HD DVD burners come out, which they havent. I certainly dont watch Blu-Ray movies on my ps3, only because I dont think paying 30 bucks for a movie is worth it, I dont care how much stuff comes with it.
Also Wareagle and Steevo I dont think we will be able to see HD-DVD players much cheaper than $200 for awhile (Blu-Ray just goes without saying since it will always be more expensive) considering the fact that there are NORMAL DVD players out there from makers like SONY, Toshiba, Samsung, etc. that will go for almost $200 just because they will UPSCALE DVD movies to HD and guess what these players only do so much on HDTV's before looking like crap so who would buy those when you could buy this (the Wal Mart $200 HD-DVD player) for maybe $30 more?

It shouldnt be a matter of playing it safe because If you were to buy one of those DVD upscalers then they would just be useless to you when you want to buy an HD player of whichever format that has finally won. There went that $179 on a DVD upscaler. So just buy yourself the HD-DVD player and save yourself the trouble.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment