Is DVD technology the fastest growing technical device in history?Think about it-i first heard of them around 1998 or so and now my averagely wealthy house[like roughly half to 3 quarters of ppl i know] has 2 players![PC and PS2].TVs took 20-30 years from their invention to take off.VCRs have been around since the early 60s or 70s but only took off in the 80s.So is it one of the fastest growing technologys?

I have not seen any figures but I would say it has taken off more quickly than vcrs. We bought a player in April and have not stopped buying dvds since. I know last Christmas, the dvd player was one of the hottest selling items and now with the PS2 being cheaper, I can see more people being introduced to dvds.

Quickest to catch on or not, I simply have never been able to understand the attraction. I cannot understand why anyone would want ot purchase a DVD player. Now the recordable versions have been released I might in time change my mind - that is when the prices come down. I have had a video recorder since 1973 - blank tapes were £10 each at that time, but to date I think I only have around three pre-recorded tapes. I do however have lots that I have recorded myself via the t.v. To much hype and people ready to swallow it in my opinion.

It has been the fastest selling electrical device known to man to date. It did not take off quite as fast as some early predictions, but it has sold faster than videotape, CD, and laserdisc.

I bought my first one in May 2000. (LG-DVD 3200E) broke and was replaced with a LG-DVD 4210.
I then got my second one in May 2001. (LG-DVD 3350E)
I am now onto my third one, but dont use it for DVD playback.(PS2).

I love the format so much, I just cant bear going back to VHS for all the new releases. This was because I sometimes watched a film more than once and each time the quality got worse and worse. But now with dvd, the deteriation is non-existent and i can watch a film as if i have just bought it again brand new.

Faust, you do make me smile. People buy dvd players primarily because of the quality of the picture (and the sound when connected to 5.1 amp). There is a huge difference in the quality of picture obtained via a dvd compared to a vcr and even more so, comparing it to a home recording.

Till April this year, I had happily used the vcr for prerecorded and home recorded movies then my home cinema kit broke down and we upgraded to a Dolby Digital 5.1/dts system. It played everything fine in Dolby Prologic but we wanted to take advantage of the 5.1 sound so we invested in a dvd player. In October we upgraded to a 32 inch widescreen tv and have gained a lot of enjoyment out of our upgraded home cinema set up. The only drawback is that when watching prerecorded films or our own recordings you really notice what a poor picture it is after being spoilt by dvds.
Believe me it isn't a hype, dvds are a far better product and leagues ahead of vcr tapes.

Recordable dvd players are available as you know but I think it will be some time before they drop down to a more affordable price. This, of course, you know because you have seen this happen with vcrs and tvs. There is a bit of competition on at the moment as to what type of format these recordable dvd players will use (eg vcrs originally had beta and vhs systems) so I would be a bit wary of investing in one till the general format is decided.

I am not interested in a dvd recorder, I would rather make recordings on the Skyplus (when we get one) and have the dvd player for favourite films - this is the way I see us going and then just having the vcr as a back up till it breaks.

I know you are thinking of buying a new tv so if you are into watching films I would strongly recommend you to purchase a dvd player at the same time. I have not heard one person who has viewed a dvd say they thought it was bad, in fact, it is the exact opposite and then they start raving on about dvds. It is not a product I would do without in the home now.

Have you managed to view a 50 and 100 Hz tv side by side to see which you prefer yet? The FX65 looks a really nice tv though I was not that keen on its stand.

All the best

Wicket

I don't know wicket, you'll have me buying into these infernal electric light bulbs next, what's wrong with the gas mantles I use I'd like to know. I know what you mean about the FX65 stand though. Why the glass up and over door? serves no real purpose to me. I prefer the look of the open stand on the curture range. In answer to your question, I have looked at a 50 and 100Hz unit side by side, courtesy of a local Euronics Centre. That name sounds like some nasty affliction to me - suffering from a bad case of the euronics doctor, what can you give me etc. Perhaps I am one of those people that is'nt that fussy about picture quality as I found it difficult to see any real difference between the picture on the latest Sony 50Hz and the 100Hz FX65 (demonstrated using dvd and quick action shots) Mind you, I am due to go to the opticians for a check-up in January. Suppose if he gives me a white stick then I should start to worry.

Thanks Faust, you brightened up my day again, you do write some well written posts, I do enjoy reading them.

I am not keen on the glass front of the FX65, I thought it would get a bit of a bind lifting it up and down. I can just to say manage to open the glass cabinet on our Sony which takes a little bit of getting used to after being used to having an open fronted cabinet. When we were looking around, we popped into Courts, one of the salemen there said they had had a lot of problems with FX65's cabinet door breaking which put us off it a bit. No one in other shops said they had had problems with it though.

It was in a Euronics Centre that I saw the two different types of tv side by side. It was the only shop in the area that we could find that displayed them like this, all the rest grouped them together. I am surprised you could not see the flicker because to me it was very obvious and the picture on the 100 Hz was not as sharp. Our demonstration was on a normal tv broadcast which is something you should compare them on as well as a dvd picture. However, as I have said to you before the flicker on a 50 Hz is only usually visible when comparing it to a 100 Hz. If you are happy with a 50 Hz picture you might as well save the cash and go for the LS Sony range rather than pay the extra out.

All the best

wicket

Thanks for the response Wicket. It is probably just me that isn't that fussy. I watched a video the other day I'd taped in 1974 and for the first minute or so kept thinking I can't remeber there being any snow in this film, two minutes in I realised it was tape degradation due to age. I think I am the only one who can watch Police Video's on Sky One in our house and not complain about the film quality. I think when I do change the t.v. it will be the FX65 though. I have just read this months report in What tv and video on the Panasonic PL10. Report verdict is that the picture is first class, but the sound system leaves a lot to be desired. As for the latest Sony 50Hz the stand on that model is really odd looking to me - sort of a stand on a stand. It would not look out of place as a cake decoration. Having said all that, I expected my present set would die when it was around twelve year old - that was five years ago. Moving off the topic somewhat, the bulb has just gone in my microwave oven, the damm thing is only 24 years old, (truly). I was wondering if I should complain to Toshiba? - nothings made to last these days is it.

I think the format can only go from strength to strength with the recent price cuts - both with players and the discs themselves.

I've had a DVD drive (for my PC) for nearly three years now but haven't used it much as DVD's were very expensive (£20-odd quid and then sometimes they'd have no features other than the bog-standard scene access). I couldn't justify spending £20+ on something I might only watch a handful of times.

Now I've found a website doing Region 2 discs for £7.99 including postage I feel like I might build up quite a collection. And R2 titles seem to offer just as much as R1 discs now which can only be a good thing.

One thing that does puzzle me is why most recent DVD's (and CD's) cost more than tapes. Don't tapes cost more to manufacture?

I've never actually had a video recorder. But I got my first ready assembled PC in March 2000, same time that I got a full service phone line so that I could connect it to the internet. For a mere extra £20, I could have had a different one with exactly the same spec .... but a DVD ROM drive. And guess what? I turned it down, thinking, of course, that DVD was nothing more than a passing fad, and went for the cheaper one.

Since then, people were talking about movies and getting DVD's on rental, I very much doubt that I'd have been able to get a decent VCR (and TV to play them on) for effectively £20, so I decided I wouldn't make the same mistake again.

Next up, titchy hard disk filling up with MP3's, so decided to get a CDRW. Looked around for the cheapest, but got to shop, and noticed that an extra £50 would get one that plays DVD's. I went for it this time.

After trying it out with a few rentals from Blockbuster, I started looking for cheaper rentals, in fact, a thread on this forum led me to look for mail order rental services, thereby leading me on to sign up for In-Movies.com. I can't believe how cheap it is to rent DVD's, I rent well over 12 of them every month now. Knocks spots of both VHS (which is more expensive) and satellite TV (which doesn't give you nearly such good choice of recent films), in my opinion.

Fortunately, I signed up before the recent price increase, so I'm still on the old deal of 3 films at a time for £15 per month. Occasionally I might rent films they don't have, or which I'm particularly keen to see, elsewhere, and I have started buying copies of ones that I liked when I rented them, so I and my friends can watch them again. I've also splashed out on an "MS Sidewinder Pro" gamepad to act as a remote control. Maybe I might get a proper telly and proper DVD player one day, when I can afford it again.

Still seems odd that they're so expensive to buy, though, but that doesn't really bother me, I just wait until prices come down. A DVD costs £20 to buy? Hey, what's the point? You could effectively rent it from In-Movies.com for four months, continuously or broken up into separate chunks of time, for the same amount of money. Assuming they have it, of course. The most I've ever paid for a DVD was £15, and that was for a copy of But I'm A Cheerleader which is yet to be delivered (from DVDoptions, they throw in a week's rental of another film for that too, p+p also included). All other DVD's I've either bought second hand, or ex-rental, or on two for the price of one offers, at an average price of around £11.

Am frustrated at not being able to buy a copy of The Matrix for a decent price yet, so I'm likely to rent it for the second time soon.

Faust I agree about the funny looking LS range, we were not keen on it either but not surprisingly a lot of the young salesmen we saw thought it was the business and were buying that set themselves. I liked the FQ for looks the best but not keen on its price or the list of problems it has on one of the threads on this site.


In the high street prices are more expensive for dvds, however, sites like play247 offer a lot of really cheap dvds for under £10. We are only buying the 'cannot wait to have a copy of that at home' dvd and then for other films we like we are just waiting till they go on special offer. DVDs do drop in price quite quickly. I know 'The Matrix' has not yet but with them rereleasing it prices may drop. The thing is to shop around.

DVDs £20 to buy??

That's strange because I usually pay around £14 to £16, no more.

Ever heard of buying on-line?

Even if they were £20, compare that to £35 for a computer game.

I think it's very reasonable for what you are getting.
High quality picture (in it's proper format, WS), 5.1 channel sound, multiple languages, subtitles, extras etc for something that initially cost millions to make and sometimes well over a year.
Is £20 asking too much ?

What's that...4 packs of cigs, a round of drinks, entrance fee to a footy match, less than a concert ticket etc etc.

This is one of the reasons why they say DVD is the fastest growing electronic product (although I am not convinced.
I know few people who actually have one). Beacuse they were very affordable from the off, including players, unlike VCRs which were VERY expensive initially and few people could afford them. VHS Films were about £50 to buy way back in the early 80s.

Believe me they were and some still are £20 - I'm not making that up and have no reason to lie about such a thing!! So how's that strange?


Yes, but not everyone can do that and not everyone wants to do that. Sometimes it's nice to buy something in a shop and take it straight home with you. Also bargains that you find online aren't quite as good as they first seem when you add shipping. I've now found a site that sells for less than other sites or shops and that doesn't charge for shipping (well I guess they do, but it's included in the price - which is cheaper to start with).


That's not really comparing like with like. A computer game usually has to try to make all it's money through sales to the public. Movie studios make money from the Box Office, video rental shops, PPV, subscription movie channels and free or basic TV.

You can also spend a hell of a lot of time playing a video game, but some movies you may only watch a couple of times.


This was usually the price video shops payed for the films wasn't it? I don't think this applied to the general public - I believe we couldn't buy certain films until they had passed the rental "window".

Yep, look in somewhere like OurPrice and there are some DVDs for £20+.
Best place to buy is Play247 no extra shipping and cheap.


If youre meaning rental shops, they still have to pay something like £80-£100 per film DVD or VHS (not sure how accurate this figure is - someone confirm?).

I think there was a gap between release on rental and VHS.

Well, £20 for a film .... erm, it depends on the film as well, for example, I was happy to pay much more for a copy of But I'm a Cheerleader (over £15 but with a rental thrown in) than I was for a copy of Girl Interrupted (which I got for under a tenner). Not saying that Girl Interrupted isn't a good film, of course it is, I wouldn't have bought a copy of it at all otherwise, but I'm that much more enthusiastic to have a copy of But I'm a Cheerleader.

Wow! Play have got The Matrix for under £15. Might go for that yet, but I still think £15 is a tad pricey for that particular film.

I've noticed that with Britannia, you used to have to be a member to find out what prices people would pay for things. Perhaps that's because they wanted to duck direct price competition in the past. But they've changed it so that you can do it now, you can now check their web site and find out prices even if you aren't a member.

So, for example, if you signed up with Britannia to get four copies of The Matrix, then fulfilled commitment by getting another six copies of The Matrix, it would cost you £150.05 (that's £17.99 plus £3.30p&p intro offer, then six lots of £19.99 for the Matrix and £1.47p&p each). Getting ten copies of The Matrix region 2 from Play.com, though, would cost you £149.90. Hmmm .... beats Britannia by 15p on this example!

But I still think they're both too expensive, I'm going to keep my eyes open for ex-rentals.

DVDs are fab I got my player back in April and have over 50 DVD for it now. I buy at lest 1-2 DVDs a week Just got Mouln Rouge R1 on Friday. 5 days before the US and am getting Jeepers Creepers R1 this week and that does't come ouy ontill 08/01/2002 in the US

How do you manage to get R1 discs before US release?

£20 for a DVD is not asking too much is it ?
I think it's excellent VFM.

They will probably get cheaper in the future, just like VHS films did in the mid 80s.

btw, I paid £40 for Queen Greatest Flix way back in 1983.

There was no such thing as 'sell-thru' tapes back then.

I was not aware that during 1939, 65% of the USA population visited the cinema at least once a week, until a documentary on the Wizard of Oz DVD pointed it out. Cinema attendance has dropped a lot since then.

I do have a theory about why DVD has taken off faster than VHS or TV (original TV, or satellite or cable) ever did. Ease of navigation of films, and extra DVD content, will make you more likely to want to buy a film that you've already seen, or rent it over and over again, than you are with VHS or pay per view TV.

Furthermore, the extra content cross references other films, which you then go looking for, even if you've already seen these other films. For example, Shrek and Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon have made me want to see The Matrix again, Stigmata made me want to see The Exorcist, Dancer In The Dark made me want to see The Sound of Music, and Girl Interrupted made me want to see The Wizard of Oz. But it's not always older films, though, because there are filmographies which make you want to see more recent ones that you might not otherwise have heard about, for example, Buffy The Vampire Slayer made me want to see I Know What You Did Last Summer for Sarah Michelle Geller.

I find it slightly irritating when they stick trailers before the main menu. For example, Scream will lead you on to Scream 3, Scary Movie and Gone In 60 Seconds, which in turn will lead you on to Coyote Ugly, High Fidelity and The Next Best Thing, and admittedly I'm a bit of a sucker for that kind of intrusive advertising. At least you can skip past these trailers fairly easily if you find them really annoying. I'm surprised that more media companies don't do this.

There's plenty of reasons why DVD is the fastest growing consumer product ever - the quality being leaps and bounds ahead even over laserdisc, the fact that there were no serious competing formats (aside from the awful DiVX pay-per-view DVD system in America, but that died the death a long time ago), the fact that the cost of entry fell quickly to an affordable level - especially through the PC route.

At the end of the day, the thing I have trouble believing is that anyone actually ever bought pre-recorded VHS. I could never bring myself to pay money for pre-recorded VHS, but I've now got over a hundred DVDs. I always wanted to collect films, but the quality of VHS was so appalingly low, and got so much worse over time, that I never saw the point in investing in them.

DVD changed all that...

Mark

You're definitely right there. But merely comparing DVD with VHS overlooks the point that its growth suggests that there has been a huge surge of interest in movies generally, which hasn't existed since perhaps the 1930's.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how I see the history of moving picture media. TV didn't kill off the cinema, but it did make a big dent in the market. VHS didn't kill off the TV or the cinema, in fact, it hardly affected TV at all. However, both TV and VHS were much slower on the uptake than DVD. I think that DVD won't kill off the cinema, but it could make a big dent in the VHS market, and possibly TV as well, if my experience is not unusual - nowadays, I spend substantially more time watching rented DVD's than watching TV.

I'd like to know if you people think this signifies a renewed interest in movies generally, and if so, why, and if not, then what really has been happening, and what it means not just for VHS but for TV as well. Thanks.

Well you've already said, and I'll quote: "I usually pay around £14 to £16, no more" - So I guess you're not prepared to pay it?


Well for us poor people not on 100k a year it is a lot! You could have a month of Sky Premier for that and three months of FilmFour with money left over. Okay the picture quality *may* not be as good and you're unlikely to have Dolby Digital but you're still getting more movies for your money.

I'm not trying to start a debate between premium film channels and DVD's though as I have both and they both have good and bad points.


They are getting cheaper! Earlier this year you couldn't get any decent releases for £10 or less - now you can. New releases are about £15 if you shop around (some even cheaper). But there is still a huge discrepancy (sp?) in what disc is what price and what you get for the money - Some films can have loads of extra features (useful ones), be quite recent and cost as little as £8 and some have no extra features and be quite old and can cost more than twice as much.

Not meaning to advertise, but simply inform other users......

ASDA sell their top 20 or so DVD's out of 50 at either £14.87 or £14.97, with most of the rest at around £15.97.

Also you can gt hold of older films here for £9.97

Going back to Gopher's original question, there was a news article just before Christmas saying that the uptake of dvd players was the fastest for any piece of technology.