DVD Talk
Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers? [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?


Willo007
08-15-09, 07:36 PM
I know this question has been brought in not so many words on this board numerous times, but I still feel there hasn't been a resolution to it that has put me at ease.

I understand studios want to push the Blu Ray format, and It is very understandable that they would promote it very heavily, but what I don't understand is why would they insult and discriminate on the DVD consumers, since we are their bread and butter.

I believe that the features that can be on both formats should be available for both consumers instead of trying to manipulate the non blu ray consumers into getting the format if they choose not to.

I personally have put lots of money, time and effort my DVD collection, I have no interest in converting to the Blu Ray format, now I am not saying the Blu Ray format is not good, better or worse, but I am very comfortable with the DVD format and not willing to convert a 4 thousand plus DVD collection to Blu Ray just because its a fad or do to manipulation of Studios. I did that already with VHS.

It is very possible withing the next 6 to 10 years another format would come along that would have more advance technology than Blu Ray and then the whole cycle will begin again.

I honestly feel studios should be held responsible for not providing the extra features and not telling or singling out consumers for their race, creed, income or because they are DVD consumers that they cannot have these features.

What are your thoughts regarding this issue guys, let the hazing begin!!!

:D

chris_sc77
08-15-09, 07:44 PM
Thank you for your continued support of DVD and while I agree with your post I must answer sadly no to your main question. If breaks my heart when they pull Blu-ray exclusives and sneaky tactics of the like.
I also am a dvd guy and have no real interest in going Blu.

philip74
08-15-09, 08:11 PM
well not that people are taking others to court constantly in this country
anyhow, but i think the studios can do what they want in this case :)
even if you took these corporations to court, i think they have much deeper
pockets and busloads full of lawyers to sit it out :)
unfortunately the only tactic that would work is if no one purchased their
products anymore, which unfortunately won`t work either, as (following dvdtalk threads) few people seem to care that dvd customers are second
rate buyers nowadays!

Alan Smithee
08-15-09, 08:45 PM
This is how I thought in the early 90s when tons of movies showed up letterboxed on laserdisc, but only pan and scan on VHS. I thought "Just because I have VHS doesn't mean I'm stupid" and sent letters to most of the studios complaining about this, but kept getting the standard response that the general public didn't like letterboxing and the people who did had laserdisc players so that's just how it was. I finally broke down and got a laserdisc player and never looked back.

Switching to Blu-Ray doesn't mean you have to re-buy all your movies on it- you can play regular DVDs on the same player and decide for yourself if they look good enough or not. (You don't even have to replace your VHS tapes for that matter, though they usually don't play on the same machine.)

drak b
08-15-09, 09:40 PM
Sadly, no. I can’t imagine any legal recourse unless they started to do something very different and blatantly illegal.

It ticks me off to no end to see stuff like this. Between Blu Ray “exclusives“ and digital copies, I have finally pretty much given up on buying SEs. For the past decade, I’ve always wanted to buy the “best” version possible of a movie on DVD but with a second disc occupied solely by a digital copy I don’t want or basic bonus features needlessly withheld to force collectors to buy their blu ray crap, why bother? This past summer I reluctantly bought my first non-SE version of a title, Watchmen. With most other titles I probably would have purchased in the past, I find myself skipping them altogether.

Frankly I think that most studios got fat and spoiled on DVD revenue during the golden days and are trying to force us into a repeat. Since video and sound quality are apparently not enough alone, they feel the need to rip off their consumers in this manner.

drak b
08-15-09, 09:41 PM
Sadly, no. I can’t imagine any legal recourse unless they started to do something very different and blatantly illegal.

It ticks me off to no end to see stuff like this. Between Blu Ray “exclusives“ and digital copies, I have finally pretty much given up on buying SEs. For the past decade, I’ve always wanted to buy the “best” version possible of a movie on DVD but with a second disc occupied solely by a digital copy I don’t want or basic bonus features needlessly withheld to force collectors to buy their blu ray crap, why bother? This past summer I reluctantly bought my first non-SE version of a title, Watchmen. With most other titles I probably would have purchased in the past, I find myself skipping them altogether.

Frankly I think that most studios got fat and spoiled on DVD revenue during the golden days and are trying to force us into a repeat. Since video and sound quality are apparently not enough alone, they feel the need to rip off their consumers in this manner.

Mr. Salty
08-15-09, 09:51 PM
What are your thoughts regarding this issue guys, let the hazing begin!!!
I don't think that DVD consumers are a legally protected class the way racial minorities are, so no.

dx23
08-15-09, 10:07 PM
I still don't get why don't people understand that now Blu-ray is the premium product for the studios. To entice customers to get Blu-ray, they add extra content and features not available on DVD. It is their prerogative and no, there is no discrimination at all because studios are not making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.

Laserdisc had more features than VHS. DVDs had more features than most laserdisc and certainly VHS. Now Blu-ray is the next step. It is called progress. It is completely ridiculous that someone would think of suing a studio because a DVD they buy has less features than the Blu-ray disc. And yes, it is most likely that there will be a better product in the next 5 years and consumers will have to adjust accordingly.

Willo007
08-15-09, 10:25 PM
I still don't get why don't people understand that now Blu-ray is the premium product for the studios. To entice customers to get Blu-ray, they add extra content and features not available on DVD. It is their prerogative and no, there is no discrimination at all because studios are not making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.

Laserdisc had more features than VHS. DVDs had more features than most laserdisc and certainly VHS. Now Blu-ray is the next step. It is called progress. It is completely ridiculous that someone would think of suing a studio because a DVD they buy has less features than the Blu-ray disc. And yes, it is most likely that there will be a better product in the next 5 years and consumers will have to adjust accordingly.

I understand studios would like for Blu-ray to be the premium product for the them. But what I dont understand or feel like they are playing nice its that even though Blu Ray might sound better and look better (depending on the film or taste) , why do they feel the need to only have features like Commentaries and documentaries exclusively to Blu Ray. The way I see it is they are not selling as good as they wanted so they are forcing the DVD collectors to up grade for only those features whether or not they want be up grated , and that is what I find to be wrong.

Drexl
08-15-09, 10:35 PM
I agree that special features shouldn't be held back from DVD. I think the format should sell itself on its own qualities, without tactics like this. However, in no way is this "discrimination" that merits legal action.

BTW, there are quite a few BDs that are missing features from the DVDs. Hey, there's another lawsuit! Can we sue over DNR, EE, and double dipping too?

And, I doubt we'll see a better format within 5 years. The next step is probably 4k, and that will be a VERY tough sell to mainstream consumers, most of which really won't be able to see the difference (and I mean really, not like how some people today say they don't see much of a difference between DVD and BD).

Solid Snake
08-15-09, 11:07 PM
I still don't get why don't people understand that now Blu-ray is the premium product for the studios. To entice customers to get Blu-ray, they add extra content and features not available on DVD. It is their prerogative and no, there is no discrimination at all because studios are not making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.

Laserdisc had more features than VHS. DVDs had more features than most laserdisc and certainly VHS. Now Blu-ray is the next step. It is called progress. It is completely ridiculous that someone would think of suing a studio because a DVD they buy has less features than the Blu-ray disc. And yes, it is most likely that there will be a better product in the next 5 years and consumers will have to adjust accordingly.

Totally agree. Buck up, guys. Let it go. WTF were you doing when DVD came out? Did you shit your pants when you couldn't get extra features on the tape? Sure some tapes had features after the credits but c'mon...just stop bitching. It's getting old for sure...kind of like the discussion of ratings and lengths for certain films. :)

I'm a DVD guy for sure right now. I buy some BR when it's a film I really like and I hear it's features are great or for some other reasons. For ex. I got There Will Be Blood on BR cuz it didn't have the crap case and it was cheaper. TDK I own on standard DVD and on BR (mostly cuz of the IMAX scenes which were great to see at IMAX).

hindolio
08-15-09, 11:47 PM
i apologize if i am not in the loop on this, but why are some new sd dvd releases so poor in quality compared to their blu counterparts? ive seen numerous threads lately about how bad the sd dvd release is while the blu is near perfect. i recall comments about this on the dark knight.

if this is accurate, as a few posters in the past have suggested, are studios intentionally releasing subpar sd dvds in order to widen the difference when compared to blu? of course, this is not illegal or discriminatory in the sense of each word. but ill argue it is pretty sucky.

orangerunner
08-15-09, 11:54 PM
The tactics used to get people to switch to Blu-ray comes across as very desperate and manipulative.

When DVD came out, its quality, features and price spoke for themselves.

The studios didn't have to start recording pre-recorded VHS tapes in SLP speed or make VHS artificially seem inferior to make DVD look better. It simply was a superior technology that you could use with your current TV & really see the difference. When you add the small disc size, the extras, the chapter stops, languages, not having to rewind etc, VHS wasn't going to last long.

In order to sell Blu-ray, the studios feel they have to "dumb" down DVD in order to make BR appear so much better. They're not really offering more (other than marginally better picture and sound) with Blu-ray, they've just decided to give you less with DVD.

When you mention Blu-ray is too expensive, the argument is that DVD was expensive when it came out as well.

Well, yes and no. Sure, a DVD player was $500 in 1998 (one year on the market) but a comparable brand Hi-Fi Stereo VHS in 1998 was $275.

Today a brand name DVD player can be had for $50 and a Blu-ray is $249 after 3+ years on the market.

DVD movies were $29.95 for a new release whereas with VHS you either paid $89.95 for a new release or you had to wait for a six month long sell-through price which was usually $14.99-$19.99. Laser disc was also available at $34.95 and up as well.

Relatively speaking, DVD was not overly expensive. Relatively speaking, as of today Blu-ray is expensive and too similar to what it is trying to replace.

TylerDurden_73
08-16-09, 01:35 AM
I don't understand this argument. Back in the mid to late 90's Before DVD, studios started putting bonus content on vhs. The first I remember was the Crow. In 1997 before DVD If I wanted to hear the commentary on Scream, I had to buy the widescreen giftset which came with two vhs tapes...one in widescreen, the second the movie with director and writer commentary. Then DVD comes along. Now the picture and audio is leaps and bounds better than vhs, and has a all new content delivery system(which turns out to be not so new if you had had a laserdisc player for tbhe previous 18-20 years). I worked in a video store from '96 to '00. The amount of bitchin I heard about the "new product" was hilarious. From "I don't notice any difference in picture quality" to "I will never get a DVD player because all the movies have black bars on them...I hate those." So then it became about content...i.e. extras. Studios started seeing that the most packed discs were their top sellers, and pretty soon everybody started releasing special editions, deluxe editions, etc. SO you see, that's were studios saw a pattern, so when they launch two new formats in 2006, people were stuck wondering what to do. The attitude was wait and see which one wins. Both offer backwards compatibility so your DVD collection was not going to be obsolete, but the big upgade is in the audio video dept. But like everything when there is competition between products and the studios can't decide on which one to support, consumer confusion abounds and DVD is still the people's choice. January 2008 a major studio goes from backing both formats to just one, and Blu-ray wins. Now studios start offering exclusive content on blu (just like they did for DVD eleven years ago).

So obviously studios are trying it again with Blu.
Personally, I still think there is a lot of confusion out there as to what HD really is. So if you can't tell a difference between 1080i or 1080p or so on, maybe you need to go to a Home theater dealer, and not Best Buy or any other big box store. Most will gladly show you a demonstration. You might even buy something while you are there.

calhoun07
08-16-09, 01:48 AM
While I clearly understand the frustration that more Blu-Ray titles are getting added features, what is happening now is really no different than when CDs first appeared on the market and when DVD first appeared on the market.

When CDs first appeared, the big thing was to put bonus tracks on the discs. Either demos or outtakes or b-sides not on the regular LP/cassette release. Sure, you were paying more for the CD because of better audio quality, but you also were getting added value on a lot of titles with the added content.

When DVDs first came out, many of the titles were widescreen only. As a result, the widescreen section in video stores got smaller and smaller.

Now with Blu-Ray they are putting the bonus features on the Blu-Ray titles. But before Blu-Ray came about, we saw less and less features being put on DVDs and some titles split the two disc limited edition from the single disc edition. That's because a lot of customers don't watch the bonus features and don't care for them. From a business standpoint, would you continue throwing money at content for a format that most of your customers will ignore? Why bother?

DVDs featured widescreen presentations of movies from the beginning because studios knew that people who would embrace the technology early would want that, and would want the added bonus features. As DVDs became more mainstream, especially after VHS died off completely, it stood to reason that the format was going to become more mainstream and putting the added features on them that attracted the collectors and vidoephiles at the beginning wouldn't work so much any more.

The studios know that their main audience for Blu-Ray is going to be the same people who embraced DVDs early. They want the added features. And one of the added features on a Blu-Ray disc is more disc space. If you are trying to sell me on the idea that Blu-Ray is better and one of the reasons it is better is because it can hold 50 GB of information, there damn well better be added features on there the regular DVD doesn't have, or you lose my sale because DVDs will upconvert just fine, and thank you very much!

I am fine with DVDs as a format. But I will agree...Blu-Ray is better. And if you don't feel the need to sink a lot of money in a whole new set up, and don't feel the need to replace your whole collection, then don't. I don't plan to. I would feel just fine with a nice but inexpensive TV that may not get as good of a resolution as a Sony 1080p but my focus is on bonus features. And the players have gone down in price, and will continue to go down in price.

And it's not discrimination. It's studios trying to determine where to focus their money and attention to appeal to the main stream consumers. I think once VHS died out, the DVD format became the new VHS. Now Blu-Ray is the way to go to get the best product. If you feel you have to get the true 1080p and buy into the hype that's the ONLY way you can experience Blu-Ray and all that mess, then that's your decision. If you want extra features and want the best releases, it really doesn't cost too much more. And I think the minimal up cost on it is not much for the trade off.

calhoun07
08-16-09, 01:52 AM
consumer confusion abounds and DVD is still the people's choice.

Tell me about it! The other day, I had somebody ask me if they make a Blu-Ray/DVD combo player. I was like...uh........

So obviously studios are trying it again with Blu.
Personally, I still think there is a lot of confusion out there as to what HD really is. So if you can't tell a difference between 1080i or 1080p or so on, maybe you need to go to a Home theater dealer, and not Best Buy or any other big box store. Most will gladly show you a demonstration. You might even buy something while you are there.

I can tell a difference. There is a clear difference to me, but I don't think the difference is all that huge of a jump in improvement for me. For some, I understand why it is, but for some people it's not the be all and end all of home entertainment. There are other reasons Blu-Ray appeals to me. And for those reasons, I will upgrade when I feel the price is fair and has gone down enough to justify it. I've seen upconverted DVDs in demonstrations and they look really good to me as well, so I am willing to wait for a time.

orangerunner
08-16-09, 03:00 AM
I can tell a difference. There is a clear difference to me, but I don't think the difference is all that huge of a jump in improvement for me. For some, I understand why it is, but for some people it's not the be all and end all of home entertainment. There are other reasons Blu-Ray appeals to me. And for those reasons, I will upgrade when I feel the price is fair and has gone down enough to justify it. I've seen upconverted DVDs in demonstrations and they look really good to me as well, so I am willing to wait for a time.

There was a clear difference between VHS and S-VHS as well. Market research told the studios it wasn't enough to make people drop their standard VHS tapes and buy into, essentially, the same product except the visuals were sharper and sound was cleaner.

There's a clear difference with Blu-ray if you put it on on a 52" HDTV screen and sit four feet away from the set. For most set-ups with a 40" or smaller TV the difference isn't going to make most people's socks roll up and down and start buying everything Blu-ray.

I still feel Blu-ray is going to be a stop-gap for something better coming up shortly.

Even within the Blu-ray format itself, if you buy a title now, in a few months a better version of the film comes out. No, "you don't have to double-dip", "no one's forcing you" is always the retort but most Blu-ray owners want the best, or they wouldn't have bothered with Blu-ray in the first place.

Will you really settle for an inferior Blu-ray version of your favorite movie? Jump on the treadmill & get ready to fork out more $$$ for the "best".

The recordable Blu-ray blank discs are at least six bucks a pop still don't have a very good track record of playing in the various machines. Creating & editing your own HD home videos on Blu-ray is very difficult and time consuming.

Add in firmware upgrades and it just feels like a format that hasn't matured enough yet.

tylergfoster
08-16-09, 03:29 AM
Even within the Blu-ray format itself, if you buy a title now, in a few months a better version of the film comes out. No, "you don't have to double-dip", "no one's forcing you" is always the retort but most Blu-ray owners want the best, or they wouldn't have bothered with Blu-ray in the first place. Even now there are some double dips and in the future I'm sure it will get worse as Blu-Ray becomes widely adopted as TV/player/product prices decrease, but at the moment, double-dipping isn't too bad. I can only think of four titles that were double-dipped, two of which aren't out yet and two of which offer an alternate cut: Casino Royale, No Country For Old Men, Natural Born Killers and Harry Potter.

UAIOE
08-16-09, 03:50 AM
I can understand the push towards Blu-Ray, as that means profits on movies that people have already bought (much like VHS---->DVD) but (for me) the price of a 1080 HDTV is still not affordable.

I'm not going to buy a 720 TV just to turn around and get a 1080 later on. I'll just have to wait until the prices are more affordable for me.

Plus I can wait for the 1st/2nd gen "hurry and port this to Blu-Ray" junk gets passed over for better stuff.

Drexl
08-16-09, 03:56 AM
Even now there are some double dips and in the future I'm sure it will get worse as Blu-Ray becomes widely adopted as TV/player/product prices decrease, but at the moment, double-dipping isn't too bad. I can only think of four titles that were double-dipped, two of which aren't out yet and two of which offer an alternate cut: Casino Royale, No Country For Old Men, Natural Born Killers and Harry Potter.

I can think of a few more, but I only know of two cases where the transfer was remastered, and one of them even had a trade-in program (The Fifth Element). Full Metal Jacket was the other. But, of course double dipping is a big issue with DVD as well.

I would really like some ideas as to what better thing is coming shortly. A flash card format? Downloads?

UAIOE
08-16-09, 04:19 AM
Holographic storage, that was the supposed "next" big tech beyond Blu-Ray.

Silverscreenvid
08-16-09, 06:36 AM
If you buy a Cadillac, it has more features than a Chevy. If you buy a high end TV or dishwasher, it has more features than the standard model. Why should it be any different for DVD/Blu Ray?

bigE
08-16-09, 07:04 AM
Because now dishwashers (SD) are being sold without the rinse cycle...

TylerDurden_73
08-16-09, 07:21 AM
Because now dishwashers (SD) are being sold without the rinse cycle...

I disagree. Extras are not essential for the overall enjoyment of the movie, like a rinse cycle is for a dishwasher. The movie is the most important thing.

stingermck
08-16-09, 07:30 AM
Did VHS collectors feel this same sense of entitlement when DVD was released? :lol:

calhoun07
08-16-09, 12:08 PM
There was a clear difference between VHS and S-VHS as well.

And there was a clear difference from cassette tape and DAT. The difference in the formats I mentioned before and these two formats is consumers WANTED the other formats. Same with the different CD formats they came out with a few years back...I don't even recall what they were called. Basically, your market research thing plays a lot into it.

There's a clear difference with Blu-ray if you put it on on a 52" HDTV screen and sit four feet away from the set. For most set-ups with a 40" or smaller TV the difference isn't going to make most people's socks roll up and down and start buying everything Blu-ray.

I don't know if you have to get that big. I begin to see a clear difference on HDTVs about maybe 40" or so. And you don't have to sit back as far, because the screen is not as big. And it's not enough to make my socks roll up and down and a lot of people I talk to are satisfied with the upconversion it does on standard DVDs so they aren't replacing their collection like they did with DVD.

I still feel Blu-ray is going to be a stop-gap for something better coming up shortly.

Word.

Even within the Blu-ray format itself, if you buy a title now, in a few months a better version of the film comes out. No, "you don't have to double-dip", "no one's forcing you" is always the retort but most Blu-ray owners want the best, or they wouldn't have bothered with Blu-ray in the first place.

So you're saying there's nothing new in the movie industry?

The recordable Blu-ray blank discs are at least six bucks a pop still don't have a very good track record of playing in the various machines. Creating & editing your own HD home videos on Blu-ray is very difficult and time consuming.

Add in firmware upgrades and it just feels like a format that hasn't matured enough yet.

The technology is still new, but the firmware upgrades would annoy me as well.

jjcool
08-16-09, 12:40 PM
Sadly, no. I can’t imagine any legal recourse unless they started to do something very different and blatantly illegal.

It ticks me off to no end to see stuff like this. Between Blu Ray “exclusives“ and digital copies, I have finally pretty much given up on buying SEs. For the past decade, I’ve always wanted to buy the “best” version possible of a movie on DVD but with a second disc occupied solely by a digital copy I don’t want or basic bonus features needlessly withheld to force collectors to buy their blu ray crap, why bother? This past summer I reluctantly bought my first non-SE version of a title, Watchmen. With most other titles I probably would have purchased in the past, I find myself skipping them altogether.

Frankly I think that most studios got fat and spoiled on DVD revenue during the golden days and are trying to force us into a repeat. Since video and sound quality are apparently not enough alone, they feel the need to rip off their consumers in this manner.

I too am sick and tired of editions being touted as two disc special editions, where the only thing on the second disc is the useless digital copy. I too normally buy the deluxe version, but when I see this, I opt for the single disc version everytime.

jjcool
08-16-09, 12:56 PM
Did VHS collectors feel this same sense of entitlement when DVD was released? :lol:

What did they remove from vhs releases that were previously on there?

jjcool
08-16-09, 01:01 PM
Studios are definitely not liable for discrimination against dvd consumers. It is their product and thay are free to do as the please.

It is up to the consumer to make his feelings known. I will say that I havent bought a two disc version of a dvd title if there was a one disc version available in at least a year. I jsut dont really care about the special features, or what passes for special features nowadays. When blue ray comes down to a reasonable price, i will jump on that bandwagon. Till then I will get my single disc dvds at 1/3 the price of the blue ray version.

Groucho
08-16-09, 01:03 PM
Discrimination? Legally liable? Get over yourself. :lol:

DJariya
08-16-09, 01:53 PM
It's a part of life that Studios and companies will start pushing premium product.

Back in the 90's, Baseball card companies started pushing their $2-$5 Packs of Premium Cards with special "Inserts" and the old 50 cent bubble cards were eventually pushed to the backburner. And you know what, people were more than happy to spend the extra $$$$ for the premium cards.

If you really care about the movie, why the hell does it matter if it's barebones? Were people complaining in 1998 paying $29.95 for the barebones Columbia-Tri Star release of Glory? I like bonus features as well, but it's just a bonus and if it's not there, it's not going to take away the experience of enjoying the movie and I'm not going to go off an a ridiculous tangent and bash/be jealous of Blu Ray product.

orangerunner
08-16-09, 01:53 PM
If you buy a Cadillac, it has more features than a Chevy. If you buy a high end TV or dishwasher, it has more features than the standard model. Why should it be any different for DVD/Blu Ray?

If you've bought Cadillacs in the past you have come to expect a certain level of quality and standard options. If a Cadillac (DVD) suddenly came standard with manual steering/brakes, plain steel wheels and an 8 track stereo for the same price you'd certainly be disappointed.

Then a Cadillac GT (Blu-ray) is released for 30% more money but it comes with all the standard features and the addition of leather seats with a scratch proof paint job.

chris_sc77
08-16-09, 02:03 PM
It's a part of life that Studios and companies will start pushing premium product.

Back in the 90's, Baseball card companies started pushing their $2-$5 Packs of Premium Cards with special "Inserts" and the old 50 cent bubble cards were eventually pushed to the backburner. And you know what, people were more than happy to spend the extra $$$$ for the premium cards.

If you really care about the movie, why the hell does it matter if it's barebones? Were people complaining in 1998 paying $29.95 for the barebones Columbia-Tri Star release of Glory? I like bonus features as well, but it's just a bonus and if it's not there, it's not going to take away the experience of enjoying the movie and I'm not going to go off an a ridiculous tangent and bash/be jealous of Blu Ray product.

Did you just compare DVD's to baseball cards?. I am sorry but that is a FAIL!

And I know I rarely buy any title that is barebones. Even if it is one of my favorite films of the year. No way am i gonna spend money on a title that no effort has been put into. I will if I really like something and its only a couple of bucks or so but even then its gotta be something special.
Its fine if they wanna do this I just want Warner Bros (and other studios) to know I wont buy there titles if they do this. Sorry but Trick Or Treat (and many other titles) is now a netflix rental ONLY!

Mr. Salty
08-16-09, 02:08 PM
Creating & editing your own HD home videos on Blu-ray is very difficult and time consuming.
Speaking as someone who has an HD camcorder, I can tell you that you don't need a Blu-ray burner or expensive blank Blu-ray discs. Most Blu-ray players play HD video burned onto regular DVD-R and DVD+R. And I'm doing so with a seven-year-old PC.

orangerunner
08-16-09, 02:14 PM
If you really care about the movie, why the hell does it matter if it's barebones? Were people complaining in 1998 paying $29.95 for the barebones Columbia-Tri Star release of Glory? I like bonus features as well, but it's just a bonus and if it's not there, it's not going to take away the experience of enjoying the movie and I'm not going to go off an a ridiculous tangent and bash/be jealous of Blu Ray product.

People paid $29.95 in 1998 for a bare-bones DVD because that was the precedent that was set at the time. VHS and many standard laser discs in 1998 rarely gave you much more than just the movie as well.

It's not a matter of being jealous or bashing Blu-ray. It's a matter of the studios degrading the existing format in order to make the higher-profit disc appear far superior.

If Blu-ray wants to make a good impression give customers, at the very least, everything they had on the DVD plus something they didn't have.

Going back to the beginning of the cycle of releasing bare-bones first then following up with a SE or the Unrated edition is a merry-go-round that isn't going to fly with consumers.

orangerunner
08-16-09, 02:17 PM
Speaking as someone who has an HD camcorder, I can tell you that you don't need a Blu-ray burner or expensive blank Blu-ray discs. Most Blu-ray players play HD video burned onto regular DVD-R and DVD+R. And I'm doing so with a seven-year-old PC.

True enough but I imagine you're down-converting it to SD, which looks fine too. You're not getting "true" 1080i HD picture quality.

UAIOE
08-16-09, 02:19 PM
In other news:

It seems "Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery" on Blu-Ray contains the same extras as the DVD from 1997 does.

So much for the Christian Slater scenes. :wtf:

Kevin M. Dean
08-16-09, 03:06 PM
True enough but I imagine you're down-converting it to SD, which looks fine too. You're not getting "true" 1080i HD picture quality.

I wouldn't make that assumption because it's perfectly possible to put 1080 HD video on a DVD-R as described. You just don't put it in a DVD format, you put it in a Blu-ray format or AVCHD.

The Man with the Golden Doujinshi
08-16-09, 03:19 PM
Hey guys, guess what's going to happen when old movie format y is being pushed to replace new movie format x? The same thing every time.

drmar35mm
08-16-09, 08:23 PM
This isn't anything illegal, it's just business. If the movie studios want to try to leverage DVD buyers into Blu Ray by withholding features from DVDs, that's their right. Equally, it's my right to keep buying DVDs and live with a reduced feature set; and/or wait until Blu Ray is available at the costs I pay for today's DVDs. But I will not jump to Blu Ray before I'm ready, just to get some extras.

hindolio
08-16-09, 09:12 PM
i apologize if i am not in the loop on this, but why are some new sd dvd releases so poor in quality compared to their blu counterparts? ive seen numerous threads lately about how bad the sd dvd release is while the blu is near perfect. i recall comments about this on the dark knight.

if this is accurate, as a few posters in the past have suggested, are studios intentionally releasing subpar sd dvds in order to widen the difference when compared to blu? of course, this is not illegal or discriminatory in the sense of each word. but ill argue it is pretty sucky.

i briefly read all of the posts since my post, and none address the issue i indicated above. any thoughts from anyone? is my post accurate or not?

Nick Danger
08-16-09, 09:15 PM
You're a studio. You've been on the gravy train for the last ten years because everyone in the world has buying DVDs. But DVD income is not increasing like it once was, and you need to come up with another way to separate people from their money.

The natural response is to come out with the same movies on a new format and convince customers to buy your movies again. Since the picture quality is only marginally better, and can only be seen on giant screens, the "upgrade" pitch will only take you so far. So you throw a little prize onto the new format to convince people to buy that instead of the less profitable old format. (But wait! There's more! NOW how much would you pay?)

It's not discrimination. It's just salesmanship.

DivxGuy
08-16-09, 10:40 PM
What are your thoughts regarding this issue guys, let the hazing begin!!!Blu-ray is now the premiere home video format, so it shouldn't be a surprise the studios are giving it priority.

It's a pleasant change from the late '90s, when the best treatment was reserved for the archaic and dying Laserdisc while DVD, then the premiere home video format, would wait months (in some cases, over a year).

Disc collecting is shifting to Blu, and I'd suggest you holdouts buy in.

Drexl
08-16-09, 10:50 PM
Holographic storage, that was the supposed "next" big tech beyond Blu-Ray.

And what would that do if it was here now? Let's even pretend that it was just as cheap to produce. What good would more space do if 50GB is more than enough for HD video? They're not going to start putting multiple movies on one disc. Sure, they may do it with old catalog titles on DVD to wring a few more sales out of them, but it won't happen for new releases or big titles.

Hindolio, I really don't know if it's true that DVD releases are getting shafted in terms of quality. I don't think The Dark Knight would be the best example, since as far as I'm concerned the BD isn't perfect either. It looks to me like it has problems with edge enhancement that may be due to the IMAX DMR process. But this is controversial, and some claim it looks fine. I haven't seen the DVD, so I don't know how it looks.

mzupeman2
08-16-09, 10:52 PM
Why shun Blu-ray because you have no interest in upgrading your current DVD's? Blu-ray players still play DVD's, and you can buy all your newer favorites you don't own yet as they become available in high definition. Why buy an HDTV if you have no interest in upgrading to HD content at all? And no, they're not legally liable. To say you don't want to upgrade is one thing, to ask such a question is just downright silly. It's a business, and they'll do what they want to get the money flowing to the next big thing that they've dumped so much money into. Fair? No. Smart? Yes.

Jericho
08-16-09, 11:38 PM
I've seen a few posts allude to a "better" format upcoming after Blu-Ray. I'm sure there will always be something newer and fancier. But let's face two facts:

(1) The main upgrade from DVD to Blu-ray is better picture and audio

(2) The audio on Blu-Ray can be lossless, which means it can't get better. Picture quality can get better, since its only at 1080p. But to appreciate it, you'll need a pretty big screen. Good luck adopting that to the masses, especially after so many are already whining about the minimal advantages of Blu-Ray.

There may be a new format coming, but it'll have a hard time offering huge benefits to anyone other than storage space.

Al_Tahoe
08-16-09, 11:44 PM
This isn't anything illegal, it's just business. If the movie studios want to try to leverage DVD buyers into Blu Ray by withholding features from DVDs, that's their right. Equally, it's my right to keep buying DVDs and live with a reduced feature set; and/or wait until Blu Ray is available at the costs I pay for today's DVDs. But I will not jump to Blu Ray before I'm ready, just to get some extras.:up::up:

chris_sc77
08-16-09, 11:45 PM
Disc collecting is shifting to Blu, and I'd suggest you holdouts buy in.

This INFURIATES me and makes me hate Blu-ray more than I already do. Also it sounds like desperate comments form someone trying to recruit as many potential buyers as possible just so the format they prefer is in the game longer.

calhoun07
08-17-09, 12:05 AM
Why shun Blu-ray because you have no interest in upgrading your current DVD's? Blu-ray players still play DVD's, and you can buy all your newer favorites you don't own yet as they become available in high definition.

Not to mention the upconversion of standard def DVDs looks pretty damn good, another plus of a Blu-Ray player.

calhoun07
08-17-09, 12:09 AM
I've seen a few posts allude to a "better" format upcoming after Blu-Ray.

There may be a new format coming, but it'll have a hard time offering huge benefits to anyone other than storage space.

There's a lot of room to grow in home formats:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/57/UHDV.svg/800px-UHDV.svg.png

Though I can't imagine Super Hi-Vision ever coming to home theaters...you'd need a TV about four times the size of the largest 1080p TV on the market today.

Mountain Biker
08-17-09, 12:11 AM
Disc collecting is shifting to Blu, and I'd suggest you holdouts buy in.


Maybe for the audio & video enthusiasts, but not for the average consumer. And the last I checked the latter far outnumbers the former.

Just like LD, I will never have an inteterest in a niche format like blu ray. I am perfectly content with what DVD offers. :)

kefrank
08-17-09, 12:24 AM
This thread is just a joke, right?

DivxGuy
08-17-09, 01:43 AM
This INFURIATES me and makes me hate Blu-ray more than I already do. Also it sounds like desperate comments form someone trying to recruit as many potential buyers as possible just so the format they prefer is in the game longer.Believe it or not, I was Red during the format war. But I am done mourning and just want hi-def now.

Maybe for the audio & video enthusiasts, but not for the average consumer. And the last I checked the latter far outnumbers the former.

Just like LD, I will never have an inteterest in a niche format like blu ray. I am perfectly content with what DVD offers. :)I remember the same things being said about VHS versus DVD. Or Laserdisc versus DVD. But eventually the holdouts came around.

JACOB
08-17-09, 01:47 AM
from what I heard. .bluray will be the last format. the dvd sound is compressed and bluray lossless is not compressed. there is a big differnce. you are an idiot you think otherwise.

Jacob

Mr. Salty
08-17-09, 01:57 AM
True enough but I imagine you're down-converting it to SD, which looks fine too. You're not getting "true" 1080i HD picture quality.
You are, in fact, wrong. I'm getting true 1080p. My camcorder, a Canon, records in AVCHD, which was developed by Sony and Panasonic and is a variation of the codec used by Blu-ray. Many Blu-ray players (Sony and Panasonic of course, as well as my Oppo, and other brands as well) will play AVCHD burned to DVD-R as data. There is also software readily available that creates menus, etc., as well. The results are excellent.
This INFURIATES me and makes me hate Blu-ray more than I already do. Also it sounds like desperate comments form someone trying to recruit as many potential buyers as possible just so the format they prefer is in the game longer.
Sorry, but it's true, whether you like it or not.

As player prices drop along with disc prices, there's little reason not to eventually replace your DVD player with Blu-ray (there is already a $100 player available, although I forget which brand).

You may not feel the need to buy a new player for no good reason, but if your DVD player dies on you, Blu-ray is a viable option. I'm finding more and more dirt-cheap discs on sale, especially from Amazon ($8 to $15 for major titles).

UAIOE
08-17-09, 02:22 AM
And what would that do if it was here now? Let's even pretend that it was just as cheap to produce. What good would more space do if 50GB is more than enough for HD video? They're not going to start putting multiple movies on one disc. Sure, they may do it with old catalog titles on DVD to wring a few more sales out of them, but it won't happen for new releases or big titles.

I was more interested in it for storage/backup more than buying Holo-Ray discs.

Tarantino
08-17-09, 02:46 AM
This INFURIATES me and makes me hate Blu-ray more than I already do. Also it sounds like desperate comments form someone trying to recruit as many potential buyers as possible just so the format they prefer is in the game longer.

http://www.realraptalk.com/images/smilies/stfu2tk.gifhttp://www.realraptalk.com/images/smilies/stfu2tk.gifhttp://www.realraptalk.com/images/smilies/stfu2tk.gifhttp://www.realraptalk.com/images/smilies/stfu2tk.gifhttp://www.realraptalk.com/images/smilies/stfu2tk.gifhttp://www.realraptalk.com/images/smilies/stfu2tk.gifhttp://www.realraptalk.com/images/smilies/stfu2tk.gifhttp://www.realraptalk.com/images/smilies/stfu2tk.gif

Brian Shannon
08-17-09, 07:40 AM
I honestly feel studios should be held responsible for not providing the extra features

Glad you feel that way, the studios don't.

Since it is their business, they can do what they want with their product. If you do not like it, open a studio and release dvd's anyway you want

And to answer your question there is no legal issue here at all

animatedude
08-17-09, 08:40 AM
fuck Blu-rayers..

slop101
08-17-09, 12:22 PM
I don't understand all this bitching. There is far more exclusive content/extras on SD dvd when compared to their blu ray counterparts.

JACOB
08-17-09, 12:39 PM
so much hate for bluray? whats the problem?

Jacob

orangerunner
08-17-09, 12:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangerunner
True enough but I imagine you're down-converting it to SD, which looks fine too. You're not getting "true" 1080i HD picture quality.


You are, in fact, wrong. I'm getting true 1080p. My camcorder, a Canon, records in AVCHD, which was developed by Sony and Panasonic and is a variation of the codec used by Blu-ray. Many Blu-ray players (Sony and Panasonic of course, as well as my Oppo, and other brands as well) will play AVCHD burned to DVD-R as data. There is also software readily available that creates menus, etc., as well. The results are excellent.

I imagine your camcorder is 1080i not 1080p, especially if it's a consumer model.

Nonetheless, you are saying you can record full HD video onto a regular DVD-R disc and have it playback as "true HD" 1080i on your Blu-ray player? Without down-converting to SD?

If we could get two hours of "True HD" on a $.20 DVD-R disc why are we even bothering with Blu-ray in the first place? Do you only get about 10 minutes of True HD footage on a 4.7G disc?

This is interesting to know. Let us know if we've misunderstood something. If what you're saying is accurate, you've just opened up a huge conspiracy in the home entertainment industry!

Mr. Salty
08-17-09, 01:08 PM
I imagine your camcorder is 1080i not 1080p, especially if it's a consumer model.

Nonetheless, you are saying you can record full HD video onto a regular DVD-R disc and have it playback as "true HD" 1080i on your Blu-ray player? Without down-converting to SD?
You imagine wrong. It records in at 1920x1080, in either 24p or 30p. There's no downconversion. The DVD-R is just a storage medium. The resulting discs are not playable on regular DVD players, because they aren't standard DVDs, or even standard Blu-rays. They're just a storage medium that have AVCHD data files stored on them, which many Blu-ray players are capable of playing.

If we could get two hours of "True HD" on a $.20 DVD-R disc why are we even bothering with Blu-ray in the first place? Do you only get about 10 minutes of True HD footage on a 4.7G disc?
I didn't say I get two hours of video per disc, but that's OK because I rarely shoot two hours worth of footage. How much footage I do get depends on what bit-rate setting I used to shoot the video. It's variable on this camcorder, up to 17mbps. Canon's new camcorders go up to 25mbps. But to answer your question, I think I can get about an hour of video on a single-layer DVD-R at the setting I normally use.

anomynous
08-17-09, 01:20 PM
Were people this butt hurt when DVD started gaining steam 11 years ago?


Legally liable, please -ohbfrank--ohbfrank--ohbfrank--ohbfrank-:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Drexl
08-17-09, 01:27 PM
so much hate for bluray? whats the problem?

Jacob

Honestly? I think some people are concerned about DVD collections they spent thousands of dollars on becoming inadequate. Even though they certainly don't have to replace the titles they have, they fear that once they get started buying new movies on BD, their current discs won't measure up anymore. Then, they might feel they made a mistake buying all those discs. So, it's better to convince themselves that there is little difference with BD so they won't want it.

Then there's the cost factor. We're not seeing $5 discs on a regular basis.

orangerunner
08-17-09, 01:28 PM
You imagine wrong. It records in at 1920x1080, in either 24p or 30p. There's no downconversion. The DVD-R is just a storage medium. The resulting discs are not playable on regular DVD players, because they aren't standard DVDs, or even standard Blu-rays. They're just a storage medium that have AVCHD data files stored on them, which many Blu-ray players are capable of playing.


I didn't say I get two hours of video per disc, but that's OK because I rarely shoot two hours worth of footage. How much footage I do get depends on what bit-rate setting I used to shoot the video. It's variable on this camcorder, up to 17mbps. Canon's new camcorders go up to 25mbps. But to answer your question, I think I can get about an hour of video on a single-layer DVD-R at the setting I normally use.

So, basically you can get 2 hours of full 1080p HD footage on a dual-layer (8.7G) DVD-R disc that will play in "many" Blu-ray players?

My question back to you is why are we being told to purchase $6.00 Blu-ray 25G blank discs when the you can achieve the same 1080p Full HD quality with a $1.00 dual-layer DVD-R?

Interesting...

anomynous
08-17-09, 01:41 PM
Honestly? I think some people are concerned about DVD collections they spent thousands of dollars on becoming inadequate. Even though they certainly don't have to replace the titles they have, they fear that once they get started buying new movies on BD, their current discs won't measure up anymore. Then, they might feel they made a mistake buying all those discs. So, it's better to convince themselves that there is little difference with BD so they won't want it.

Then there's the cost factor. We're not seeing $5 discs on a regular basis.

No shit, everybody should know that.

That's like complaining you bought a TV 15 years ago then HDTVs started becoming mainstream 5 years ago, and not buying one, because you feel it's not an improvement, because you're in denial.

Or cassettes to CDs.

Of course the old tech won't measure up to the new technology, that's how technology works.


People hate blu-ray because it makes DVDs inadequate & obsolete? Too bad, it happens to every form of technology. Get over yourselves.

chris_sc77
08-17-09, 01:53 PM
People hate blu-ray because it makes DVDs inadequate & obsolete? Too bad, it happens to every form of technology. Get over yourselves.

Bitter, Angry and scared folks. Thats what that sure sounds like.
How many times must I remind you that DVD STILL outsells Blu-ray AT LEAST 9 to 1. Come back and say this when the numbers are a little more level.

emachine12
08-17-09, 02:00 PM
Because its not just about video...

For those of you complaining about lack of "features" or DVD being crippled, here is the thing.

DVDs can have video commentaries so long as a second encode of the film is included with that commentary always on. That means for a lot of movies, you are going to have two disc sets (or in the case of those with digital copies: three disc sets).

The best audio is going to be DTS 1.5mbs which due to DVD's mandatory codecs, means a secondary PCM or Dolby Digital track has to be included. So to save space for the extras (and the 2nd encode of the film with video commentary), you are going to have DTS 1.5mbs with DD 5.1 448kbs but for a handful of film expect DTS 1.5mbs with DD 2.0 192kbs.

The telestrator commentary could be done with DVD but as Sony has proven, for DVD since its a subtitle track and not a video track (as it is on BD); the player has to be set to 4x3 to properly diisplay this track.

Then there is internet connectivity. Sure, it may be gimmicky right now (save for Transformers where new extras were available to download) but this is only technically possible on DVD through a computer. And even then, the closest anyone has gotten to a trully internet enhanced DVD playback was Lara Croft: Tomb Raider with its playable trivia game during the film.

As for exclusive BD extras that are not technical leaps like featurettes, interviews, commentaries, etc. Well, then get your legal team ready to work around the clock.

Why?

Because Optimum, Panorama, Madman, Artifiical Eye, Mangpong, Kam & Ronson and oter smaller distributors in Europe, Australia, and Asia are offering up exclusive extras not found on US DVDs. How dare Kam & Ronson offer the uncut Police Story III: Supercop while the US disc is cut! How dare Optimum make a better DVD for This Is Spinal Tap!

Because Best Buy, Target, and Walmart are offering retailer exclusive bonus discs only available when you buy from them. Why do I have to shop at Best Buy to get all the extras for The Fast and Furious?

orangerunner
08-17-09, 02:05 PM
Were people this butt hurt when DVD started gaining steam 11 years ago?

You have to have a bit of empathy for some collectors. After 20 years of VHS with tapes being eaten, degrading picture, full screen pan & scan, macrovision interferring with the picture, fast forwarding/rewinding etc.
it was time for something new. DVD was a welcome upgrade from VHS.

I had a collection of 250 VHS tapes and had no problem replacing the important movies in my collection to DVD because I really felt the extra value I was receiving.

Remember too that video collecting in the VHS days was not as popular as collecting DVDs was. Many people were virtually starting their collection from scratch when DVD came out.

Three years after DVD took over the market out came Blu-ray/HD-DVD. It was too soon and the product was too similiar with a much higher price tag.

I guess it depends on your age. If you're 35+ you're probably getting tired after collecting VHS, then Laser Disc, then DVD and now Blu-ray is the next "gotta-have" format.

Wait until you collect 700 Blu-ray discs which you paid $25 each for and then find out ten years later you can store 1000 Super-HD movies on your iPod at $.99 a pop.

The last thing you really want to hear is "Too bad, too sad, technology steamrolls ahead buddy!"

UAIOE
08-17-09, 02:07 PM
Were people this butt hurt when DVD started gaining steam 11 years ago?

When I worked at Best Buy around 2000, I remember talking to a lady who was totally against DVD. She said she had a significant VHS movie collection and she wasn't going to replace her VHS collection with DVD's.

If that remained true I don't know. But there was at least *ONE* who was butt hurt by the DVD transition.

emachine12
08-17-09, 02:08 PM
Because its not just about video, its audio too. Blu-ray Disc offers lossless multichannel audio equal to the original masters. DTS-HD Master Audio, Dolby TrueHD, and PCM uncompressed. But if you really are hung up on the video side, BD media allows up to a 40mbs video bit rate. So movies like Spaceballs which has around a 35mbs video bit rate on BD but only a 6.5mb bit rate on DVD are going to look a lot better than AVCHD discs.

For those of you complaining about lack of "features" or DVD being crippled, here is the thing.

DVDs can have video commentaries so long as a second encode of the film is included with that commentary always on. That means for a lot of movies, you are going to have two disc sets (or in the case of those with digital copies: three disc sets).

The best multi-chanmel audio is going to be DTS 1.5mbs which due to DVD's mandatory codecs, means a secondary PCM or Dolby Digital track has to be included. So to save space for the extras (and the 2nd encode of the film with video commentary), you are going to have DTS 1.5mbs with DD 5.1 448kbs but for a handful of film expect DTS 1.5mbs with DD 2.0 192kbs.

Of course, you can still have lossless audio, sort of. DVD offers PCM 2.0 Surround sound. So you won't see all the lights light up on your 5.1 receiver but the stereo sound is going to be sweet. Imagine PCM 2.0 being played back on a 7.1 system. Oooh, I got the shingles thinking about it.

The telestrator commentary could be done with DVD but as Sony has proven, for DVD since its a subtitle track and not a video track (as it is on BD); the player has to be set to 4x3 to properly diisplay this track.

Then there is internet connectivity. Sure, it may be gimmicky right now (save for Transformers where new extras were available to download) but this is only technically possible on DVD through a computer. And even then, the closest anyone has gotten to a trully internet enhanced DVD playback was Lara Croft: Tomb Raider with its playable trivia game during the film.

As for exclusive BD extras that are not technical leaps like featurettes, interviews, commentaries, etc. Well, then get your legal team ready to work around the clock.

Why?

Because Optimum, Panorama, Madman, Artifiical Eye, Mangpong, Kam & Ronson and oter smaller distributors in Europe, Australia, and Asia are offering up exclusive extras not found on US DVDs. How dare Kam & Ronson offer the uncut Police Story III: Supercop while the US disc is cut! How dare Optimum make a better DVD for This Is Spinal Tap!

Because Best Buy, Target, and Walmart are offering retailer exclusive bonus discs only available when you buy from them. Why do I have to shop at Best Buy to get all the extras for The Fast and Furious?

Eddie W
08-17-09, 02:10 PM
I recall this same vitriol against DVD from laserdisc owners way back in the day. They were (rightly in that case) concerned that DVD would make their collections obsolete. Not so here.

But the beauty of technology advancements is that not once have a had a gun placed to my head, grumbled up to the counter, and grudingly slapped my money down for an upgraded title. I'm always excited to see an old favorite in crisp HD. If I'm not excited about it, the existing DVD in my collection will suffice.

And they're called Extras. Bonus Features. By very definition they're something you're getting as a bonus to the movie you just bought. Studios have no obligation to include them on either format. I think they've actually diluted their value by including them on every movie that comes out, worthy or not.

It seems a lot of people see them as increasing the 'worth' of the disc instead of something that they'll really want to watch. Yeah, maybe the extras on Raging Bull give you an fresh insight to a great movie. Not so much for 17 Again. Just the movie is fine, thanks.

orangerunner
08-17-09, 02:35 PM
It seems a lot of people see them as increasing the 'worth' of the disc instead of something that they'll really want to watch. Yeah, maybe the extras on Raging Bull give you an fresh insight to a great movie. Not so much for 17 Again. Just the movie is fine, thanks.

I think you've touched on my apathy with Blu-ray. For me, the extra features were interesting on older films which was pretty much exhausted on Special Edition DVDs.

With new films, I have no real interest in the extra making-of features, gag reels, deleted scenes etc. It probably helps explain why many DVDs are coming out now with just the feature at a lesser price.

DivxGuy
08-17-09, 02:59 PM
You have to have a bit of empathy for some collectors. After 20 years of VHS with tapes being eaten, degrading picture, full screen pan & scan, macrovision interferring with the picture, fast forwarding/rewinding etc.
it was time for something new. DVD was a welcome upgrade from VHS.
And DVD collectors were already dreaming of hi-def in 1998, when the nascent format was barely a year old.

Three years after DVD took over the market out came Blu-ray/HD-DVD. It was too soon and the product was too similiar with a much higher price tag.
It couldn't have come soon enough as far as I was concerned. And I bought into DVD when the format had barely been on the market six months.

I guess it depends on your age. If you're 35+ you're probably getting tired after collecting VHS, then Laser Disc, then DVD and now Blu-ray is the next "gotta-have" format.
No one is saying to replace your DVD collection if you're satisfied with it. It's new acquisitions where it makes sense to choose the newer format.

Wait until you collect 700 Blu-ray discs which you paid $25 each for and then find out ten years later you can store 1000 Super-HD movies on your iPod at $.99 a pop.
As long as I can play my discs and no one is trying to force me to re-buy them (as has happened with the losers in the format war), why do I care?

The last thing you really want to hear is "Too bad, too sad, technology steamrolls ahead buddy!"Huh? It's a fact that technology becomes obsolete. Often rapidly.

anomynous
08-17-09, 03:04 PM
Bitter, Angry and scared folks. Thats what that sure sounds like.
How many times must I remind you that DVD STILL outsells Blu-ray AT LEAST 9 to 1. Come back and say this when the numbers are a little more level.

Of course it outsells it, HDTV penetration level is at what, 25%?


It took how long for DVD to "fully" take over? 9 years?

Of course DVDs are still going to be outselling when most people don't have a HDTV yet, and even then, longer for Blu-ray sales to overtake DVD.


Not to mention, I never said anything about sales, so why was it brought up?

Now, I'm going to go cry that my First Generation Ipod & Betamax player obsolete, I'll be back later.

slop101
08-17-09, 03:29 PM
Bitter, Angry and scared folks. Thats what that sure sounds like. Sorry bro, you're the only one who sounds bitter and angry here. I'm not bitter and angry at all, because I'm enjoying my blu-ray discs more than ever with my nice new 50" plasma.

A question for blu-ray "haters":
What kind of TV do you have and how big is it?

orangerunner
08-17-09, 03:43 PM
Sorry bro, you're the only one who sounds bitter and angry here. I'm not bitter and angry at all, because I'm enjoying my blu-ray discs more than ever with my nice new 50" plasma.

A question for blu-ray "haters":
What kind of TV do you have and how big is it?

I'm not a Blu-ray hater, the quality of the picture and sound is better. I just feel it's overpriced and a stop-gap for compact hard-drives that can store hundreds of HD movies.

Currently I have a 36" Sony Wega CRT and I sit 7 feet away. Is Blu-ray going to be any reasonable advantage for me over DVD? No.

slop101
08-17-09, 03:50 PM
Currently I have a 36" Sony Wega CRT and I sit 7 feet away. Is Blu-ray going to be any reasonable advantage for me over DVD? No.For you, hardly, if at all. My point is if/when you do get a bigger, nicer TV (>50"), you won't be nearly as ambivalent about blu-ray discs as you are now. And as far as prices, they're coming way down. I haven't paid more than $15 for a catalog title in a long while - and they're getting even cheaper by the week.

bunnydojo
08-17-09, 08:23 PM
This thread is just a joke, right?+1

The sue-first, think-later mentality penetrating everything lately is downright silly. The studio has the right to release whatever they want at whatever price they want, the consumer has the right to buy it or not buy it. It's a fairly simple agreement.

Mr. Salty
08-17-09, 08:24 PM
My question back to you is why are we being told to purchase $6.00 Blu-ray 25G blank discs when the you can achieve the same 1080p Full HD quality with a $1.00 dual-layer DVD-R?
Nobody told me I have to buy anything, so I can't answer your question. Maybe you're too easily swayed by marketing.

Burnable Blu-ray has other uses than just home video. I don't know what they are, because for the foreseeable future I feel no need to buy a Blu-ray burner.
I guess it depends on your age. If you're 35+ you're probably getting tired after collecting VHS, then Laser Disc, then DVD and now Blu-ray is the next "gotta-have" format.
I'm 45, so that isn't the case for me. I also feel no need to run out and replace everything I own with Blu-rays. I replace a few things as I find them for good prices on sale (like "2001" for $8.99), but I mostly buy new releases or I rent.

speedy1961
08-17-09, 11:14 PM
i apologize if i am not in the loop on this, but why are some new sd dvd releases so poor in quality compared to their blu counterparts? ive seen numerous threads lately about how bad the sd dvd release is while the blu is near perfect. i recall comments about this on the dark knight.

if this is accurate, as a few posters in the past have suggested, are studios intentionally releasing subpar sd dvds in order to widen the difference when compared to blu? of course, this is not illegal or discriminatory in the sense of each word. but i'll argue it is pretty sucky.

Of course this is true. This really stems from the belief that parent corporations really"know" what the masses are willing to buy / consume.

I myself will hold off on converting to Blu-Ray until I absolutely have to.

orangerunner
08-17-09, 11:23 PM
Nobody told me I have to buy anything, so I can't answer your question. Maybe you're too easily swayed by marketing.

Burnable Blu-ray has other uses than just home video. I don't know what they are, because for the foreseeable future I feel no need to buy a Blu-ray burner.

I'm 45, so that isn't the case for me. I also feel no need to run out and replace everything I own with Blu-rays. I replace a few things as I find them for good prices on sale (like "2001" for $8.99), but I mostly buy new releases or I rent.

I don't own anything Blu-ray!

The fact you can put two hours of 1080p full HD content on a dual layer DVD-R and play it back in full 1080p HD on a Blu-ray player is hardly a measure of my (or anyone else's) gullibility by the Sony marketers.

If what you say is accurate, Sony has done superior job of pulling wool over the eyes of 10% of the whole home video market.

Maybe I'll check if my DVDs will play in my VHS machine...:rimshot:

DivxGuy
08-18-09, 12:01 AM
I know this question has been brought in not so many words on this board numerous times, but I still feel there hasn't been a resolution to it that has put me at ease.

I understand studios want to push the Blu Ray format, and It is very understandable that they would promote it very heavily, but what I don't understand is why would they insult and discriminate on the DVD consumers, since we are their bread and butter.
I'd like to add that DVD revenues are dropping while Blu-ray revenues are rising. Blu-ray margins are several times those of DVD, just like DVD margins were once several times those of VHS. Naturally the studios want to encourage consumers to buy the more expensive format, whether it's through exclusive features, rental windows, or anything else they choose.

Legally and ethically, this is not only perfectly acceptable, it's the duty of the studios to their shareholders (to maximize their revenue).

calhoun07
08-18-09, 01:27 AM
And DVD collectors were already dreaming of hi-def in 1998, when the nascent format was barely a year old.

I had a friend in the early days of my DVD collecting back around that time who told me the next format would be a player with a blue laser. I have no idea how he knew about it then...must have been in the works at the time, obviously...but that's actually correct. However, aside from a few tech geeks, who knew that? They certainly didn't advertise that when people were shelling out good money for DVDs back in the day.

orangerunner
08-18-09, 01:38 AM
I had a friend in the early days of my DVD collecting back around that time who told me the next format would be a player with a blue laser. I have no idea how he knew about it then...must have been in the works at the time, obviously...but that's actually correct. However, aside from a few tech geeks, who knew that? They certainly didn't advertise that when people were shelling out good money for DVDs back in the day.

I still remember seeing professional HDCAM tape for the first time in 2000 at a video post production house. The had a player deck, recorder deck and a monitor. The three components cost over $500,000 at the time.

A few companies invested in HD at that time & I think it bankrupted all of them within a year or so. It was too expensive and there was so little demand for HD.

Mr. Salty
08-18-09, 03:06 AM
If what you say is accurate, Sony has done superior job of pulling wool over the eyes of 10% of the whole home video market.

Maybe I'll check if my DVDs will play in my VHS machine...:rimshot:

Sony is not pulling the wool over anyone's eyes.

Your problem remains your lack of comprehension that just because a DVD-R is the medium, the resulting disc is nothing like a standard DVD that is capable of HD. It's a data disc that is not playable on a standard DVD player.

DVD uses the MPEG-2 video codec, with a maximum NTSC resolution of 720x480, with a maximum video bit rate of about 10 mbps. This is insufficient for HD content.

Blu-ray players support many more video codecs. In addition to MPEG-2, they support AVC, AVCHD, VC-1 and MPEG-4. All have higher video bit rates than MPEG-2.

My camcorder, for example, records in AVCHD, which is not supported by DVD players, with a maximum video bit rate of 17 mbps.

These files simply aren't playable on DVD players, and never will be. They can be converted to standard definition MPEG-2 so a standard DVD can be made, but to see them in HD, they must be preserved in the video codec that was designed for Blu-ray (AVCHD is a slight variation of Blu-ray's AVC codec).

Hank1215
08-18-09, 08:25 AM
Mr. Salty,

You keep talking about using your HD camcorder to record HD on to regular DVD, but you are not saying you could burn a two hour BD movie to a DVD and have it play at 1080i/p?

The Bus
08-18-09, 08:35 AM
Vote with your wallet. It's the only way they will understand.

DivxGuy
08-18-09, 10:39 AM
I had a friend in the early days of my DVD collecting back around that time who told me the next format would be a player with a blue laser. I have no idea how he knew about it then...must have been in the works at the time, obviously...but that's actually correct. However, aside from a few tech geeks, who knew that? They certainly didn't advertise that when people were shelling out good money for DVDs back in the day.I read that blue lasers could hold the key to HD optical discs about 2000 on The Digital Bits. By 2003 there were already two competing HD optical formats and it was common knowledge to anyone in the home theater hobby that HD discs were coming. A furore then broke out when it was revealed that the MPAA had kept secret plans to block the new format from working over analog inputs so as not to implode the burgeoning market for 1080i analog sets. Those of us who paid boutique prices for early HDs sets were very unhappy, as we thought we'd been cheated out of being able to use them for HD.

It's been common knowledge for most of the decade that HD discs would supplant SDVD. Since the players are backwardly compatible, I don't see why collectors are so upset. Their existing discs will continue to play. And they should be pleased that the premier format gets promoted over the lesser ones, a stark reversal of the days when DVD releases had to wait for months or years while laserdisc was day and date with rental VHS.

orangerunner
08-18-09, 12:37 PM
Sony is not pulling the wool over anyone's eyes.

Your problem remains your lack of comprehension that just because a DVD-R is the medium, the resulting disc is nothing like a standard DVD that is capable of HD. It's a data disc that is not playable on a standard DVD player.

DVD uses the MPEG-2 video codec, with a maximum NTSC resolution of 720x480, with a maximum video bit rate of about 10 mbps. This is insufficient for HD content.

Blu-ray players support many more video codecs. In addition to MPEG-2, they support AVC, AVCHD, VC-1 and MPEG-4. All have higher video bit rates than MPEG-2.

My camcorder, for example, records in AVCHD, which is not supported by DVD players, with a maximum video bit rate of 17 mbps.

These files simply aren't playable on DVD players, and never will be. They can be converted to standard definition MPEG-2 so a standard DVD can be made, but to see them in HD, they must be preserved in the video codec that was designed for Blu-ray (AVCHD is a slight variation of Blu-ray's AVC codec).

That's a fine list of technical specs but you haven't really addressed my question.

I realize you won't be able to play the HD content burned onto a DVD-R disc on a DVD player. DVD players do not play HD 1080i/p content or data.

You claim two hours of HD 1080i/p video content burned onto a dual layer DVD-R will play on a Blu-ray player.

If I understand this correctly, it would make the expensive Blu-ray discs an unnecessary extra expense to get two hours of 1080i/p content to play from your Blu-ray player? No?

Mr. Salty
08-18-09, 12:40 PM
Mr. Salty,

You keep talking about using your HD camcorder to record HD on to regular DVD, but you are not saying you could burn a two hour BD movie to a DVD and have it play at 1080i/p?
No, I am not.

I have quite clearly explained the various video codecs. The camcorder is AVCHD and does not have the file structure typical of Blu-ray discs. A store-bought Blu-ray is not AVCHD, has a higher video bit rate as well as a higher bit-rate audio track (Dolby Digital True HD, etc.), a more complicated file structure (with menus, etc.) and so forth. And the dual-layer DVD-Rs that orange is talking about are twitchy enough on regular DVD players. I'm not sure they'd play on a BD player, although I haven't tried.

Mr. Salty
08-18-09, 12:55 PM
You claim two hours of HD 1080i/p video content burned onto a dual layer DVD-R will play on a Blu-ray player.
No, I did not. That was your tangent. Dual-layer DVD-Rs are unreliable, so I have not tried them. I'm not sure either of my BD players will even play them. Also, remember that my time estimate was just a guess. I've never maxed out a disc. I think I reliably get 45 minutes to an hour on a DVD-R. That's all I've said.

If I understand this correctly, it would make the expensive Blu-ray discs an unnecessary extra expense to get two hours of 1080i/p content to play from your Blu-ray player? No?
You have understand very little correctly in this thread so far.

Blu-ray discs were created to give a comfortably high storage capacity so we could have a lengthy movie with the highest possible video bit rate, plus uncompressed audio tracks and plenty of extras.

While consumer-grade camcorders produce great results compared with their SD counterparts, they are still lower bit-rate than commercial BD releases, and they have compressed two-channel Dolby Digital audio at a relatively low audio bit-rate.

The point of my original post was to refute your idea that you need a Blu-ray burner in order to enjoy HD home video. You don't. But that doesn't mean a data DVD is sufficient for a typical two-hour movie in HD.

orangerunner
08-18-09, 01:18 PM
No, I did not. That was your tangent. Dual-layer DVD-Rs are unreliable, so I have not tried them. I'm not sure either of my BD players will even play them. Also, remember that my time estimate was just a guess. I've never maxed out a disc. I think I reliably get 45 minutes to an hour on a DVD-R. That's all I've said.


You have understand very little correctly in this thread so far.

Blu-ray discs were created to give a comfortably high storage capacity so we could have a lengthy movie with the highest possible video bit rate, plus uncompressed audio tracks and plenty of extras.

While consumer-grade camcorders produce great results compared with their SD counterparts, they are still lower bit-rate than commercial BD releases, and they have compressed two-channel Dolby Digital audio at a relatively low audio bit-rate.



The point of my original post was to refute your idea that you need a Blu-ray burner in order to enjoy HD home video. You don't. But that doesn't mean a data DVD is sufficient for a typical two-hour movie in HD.


Sorry Mr. Salty, this was the initial info you provided:

Speaking as someone who has an HD camcorder, I can tell you that you don't need a Blu-ray burner or expensive blank Blu-ray discs. Most Blu-ray players play HD video burned onto regular DVD-R and DVD+R. And I'm doing so with a seven-year-old PC.

To me it sounded like you can achieve full HD 1080i/p quality burned onto a regular DVD-R (1 hour for single layer or 2 hours on twitchy dual layer) and play it back in your Blu-ray player and enjoy a full HD picture.

I see what you mean about placing a compressed HD file on a DVD-R as data & it would still be considered "HD".

Mr. Salty
08-18-09, 04:55 PM
Sorry Mr. Salty, this was the initial info you provided:
And then I made several subsequent posts.

There very well may be no reason why you couldn't make a high-def disc on a regular commercially-pressed dual-layer DVD (I don't know for sure). But you would likely be quite limited in how long the running time could be.

To your point about cost, yes the studios are charging more for Blu-rays. Part of this is because they're seen as a "premium" product, but it's also because they're selling fewer copies, and therefore the per-unit cost is going to be higher. We're already seeing prices come down as sales are increasing.

Whether the extra cost is worth it is up to the individual. In my case, I have a 50-inch HDTV. I don't mind spending $5 or so more for a disc that I'm going to own and enjoy for years to come.

AnonomusBob15
08-18-09, 05:55 PM
I don't see why anyone would hate Blu-Ray. I think it's great, and as soon as the prices drop I am going to convert. That could be years from now. So it's DVD till then. I never buy day and date, and usually pick up titles on sale. I buy about 10 DVDs a year now, and it pisses me off when I can't watch something that I should be able to.

I've made up my mind. I will upgrade down the road, just don't make the material unavaible to me. I've wanted to watch the extra features on The Dark Knight blu for awhile now, but alas, I can't.

The argument of VHS vs. DVD isn't fair, because though in some RARE cases, VHS have always been produced without special features. and they just plain suck.

It also pisses me off when they withold the features from the Blu that were on the DVD. I mean, come on...

Chrisedge
08-18-09, 06:30 PM
I don't own anything Blu-ray!

The fact you can put two hours of 1080p full HD content on a dual layer DVD-R and play it back in full 1080p HD on a Blu-ray player is hardly a measure of my (or anyone else's) gullibility by the Sony marketers.

If what you say is accurate, Sony has done superior job of pulling wool over the eyes of 10% of the whole home video market.

Maybe I'll check if my DVDs will play in my VHS machine...:rimshot:

The quality (bitrate) is less on a DL-DVD, than it would be on 25GB or 50GB BD disc. Read up on encoding and you will see.

I have plenty of HD recordings on SL DVD and DL DVDs and on a external HD. Not too difficult to record them from your cable box, and maintain HD quality. The size (1080P vs 1080i vs 720p) and the bit rate determine how big the final file will be.

orangerunner
08-19-09, 01:23 AM
And then I made several subsequent posts.

There very well may be no reason why you couldn't make a high-def disc on a regular commercially-pressed dual-layer DVD (I don't know for sure). But you would likely be quite limited in how long the running time could be.

To your point about cost, yes the studios are charging more for Blu-rays. Part of this is because they're seen as a "premium" product, but it's also because they're selling fewer copies, and therefore the per-unit cost is going to be higher. We're already seeing prices come down as sales are increasing.

Whether the extra cost is worth it is up to the individual. In my case, I have a 50-inch HDTV. I don't mind spending $5 or so more for a disc that I'm going to own and enjoy for years to come.

So it would be fair to describe it is a lower quality, compressed version of HD that is still higher quality than if you down-converted to SD?

I think the confusion comes from the fact that the term HD is used very loosely for a very broad range of quality. You see everything from YouTube videos claiming to be HD to professional quality HDCAM.

TheKing
08-19-09, 02:27 AM
I don't see why anyone would hate Blu-Ray. I think it's great, and as soon as the prices drop I am going to convert. That could be years from now. So it's DVD till then. I never buy day and date, and usually pick up titles on sale. I buy about 10 DVDs a year now, and it pisses me off when I can't watch something that I should be able to.

I've made up my mind. I will upgrade down the road, just don't make the material unavaible to me. I've wanted to watch the extra features on The Dark Knight blu for awhile now, but alas, I can't.

The argument of VHS vs. DVD isn't fair, because though in some RARE cases, VHS have always been produced without special features. and they just plain suck.

It also pisses me off when they withold the features from the Blu that were on the DVD. I mean, come on...

Anyone that bought into HD DVD has a pretty compelling reason to dislike Blu-ray. Maybe not the technology itself, but most definitely the forces behind it.

The format war left a bad taste in the mouth of many consumers, and not just those that picked Red over Blu.

Mr. Salty
08-19-09, 03:34 AM
So it would be fair to describe it is a lower quality, compressed version of HD that is still higher quality than if you down-converted to SD?

I think the confusion comes from the fact that the term HD is used very loosely for a very broad range of quality. You see everything from YouTube videos claiming to be HD to professional quality HDCAM.

That would probably be a fair assessment, although the quality is pretty darned good. It's either 1440x1080 or 1920x1080, but at a slightly lower bit rate than what Blu-ray is capable of. But that's because I bought a camcorder last year. The new version is capable of a higher bit rate.

Lastdaysofrain
08-19-09, 08:11 AM
I'm not a Blu "hater" but I have zero interest in it at the moment. I have a 55" Full HD Plasma, upconverted DVD looks great.

Few factors as to why I'm not interested in Blu

1. I watch plenty of HD content with my FIOS, which does look great on my TV.
2. I'm perfectly happy with the way my DVDs look (and I realize that a blu player would make them look great as well) upconverted.
3. I don't buy a lot of "new" movies, I mostly buy catalog titles, and TV on DVD
4. I own over 6k DVDs and although I'm tempted by some upcoming Blu releases, nothing has really been great enough or exclusive enough to warrant the cose.
5. I'm an all region guy and I haven't seen an affordable reliable Blu that can play all region and easily convert PAL to NTSC

PixyJunket
08-19-09, 09:00 AM
Discrimination? Legally liable?

This. This can't be serious. Can it?

cpgator
08-19-09, 10:55 AM
I personally don't how someone can have an HDTV and subscribe to HD service, but then bitch about blu ray and say that DVD is fine. Makes no sense.

bsmith
08-19-09, 11:19 AM
I personally don't how someone can have an HDTV and subscribe to HD service, but then bitch about blu ray and say that DVD is fine. Makes no sense.

If you are referring to Lastdaysofrain's post, it makes perferct sense to me. First off it wasn't a bitch'in post as you reference but just common sense on why they haven't been captivated by BR yet. And it is similar to my own feelings at this time.

Older catalog and TV titles are rarely available on BR at this time, and who knows if they even will be for some time. So why get hyped about a technology that currently doesn't support your viewing interests.

When you have a large collection of DVD's (with probably many still unwatched) and you don't watch as much brand new content why go BR for a low percentage of your current viewing when you can wait for prices of both players and content to continue to go down.

Current cheaper DVD players typically offer better upconversion of DVD's then your BR counterparts, except for maybe the Oppo. But then again that isn't cheap.

Based on screen size and viewing distance there can be less of an impact going BR. Remember, the majority of us were happy with DVD for many years, so just because something better comes along does not mean what we previously had was bad.

As DVD's production matured many of us continued to double and triple dip because the products produced the first go around were not of the best quality. From reviews I have read this trend is continuing with BR disks in many cases (especially catalog titles). Excessive DNR, edge enhancements, using older masters that could be better cleaned using newer technology, incompatible disks. Some have already come out twice and are still not where they should be. Why not wait a little longer for better produced content and avoid the double and triple dipping if you wouldn't be watching a majority of BR content anyway.

I currently have a 92" screen 1080p projection system and sit about 12 feet back. I still don't have a BR player. I will probably get the Oppo around the beginning of 2010. Even then probably only about 10% of my viewing will be BR until more and more titles I am interested in come out.

I think that makes perfect sense.

GenPion
08-19-09, 11:46 AM
^^ Have you watched any good Blu-ray discs for PQ/AQ? For your setup, the difference would be huge (and mind-blowing). 1080p Blu-ray High Definition is far better than OTA High Definition is.

cpgator
08-19-09, 11:49 AM
Older catalog and TV titles are rarely available on BR at this time, and who knows if they even will be for some time. So why get hyped about a technology that currently doesn't support your viewing interests. So buy it on DVD if its only available on DVD.

When you have a large collection of DVD's (with probably many still unwatched) and you don't watch as much brand new content why go BR for a low percentage of your current viewing when you can wait for prices of both players and content to continue to go down. Don't buy the BD when it first comes out if you aren't going to be able to watch it. Wait until you are ready, and by that time the price will have fallen.

Current cheaper DVD players typically offer better upconversion of DVD's then your BR counterparts, except for maybe the Oppo. But then again that isn't cheap. Ok - then don't use your BD player to watch your DVDs.

Based on screen size and viewing distance there can be less of an impact going BR. Remember, the majority of us were happy with DVD for many years, so just because something better comes along does not mean what we previously had was bad. Then why have HD programming on that HDTV? And it has nothing to do with DVDs being bad, just that there is now something better.

As DVD's production matured many of us continued to double and triple dip because the products produced the first go around were not of the best quality. From reviews I have read this trend is continuing with BR disks in many cases (especially catalog titles). Excessive DNR, edge enhancements, using older masters that could be better cleaned using newer technology, incompatible disks. Some have already come out twice and are still not where they should be. Why not wait a little longer for better produced content and avoid the double and triple dipping if you wouldn't be watching a majority of BR content anyway. No matter how bad the HD transfer is, it is better than the DVD the vast majority of the time.

My point is why spend money on a HDTV and HD programming, but refuse to watch movies in HD? You'll spend more money with Comcast to watch TV in HD, but won't spend more to watch movies in HD? I just don't get it.

You don't have to throw out your DVD player or your vast collection of DVDs. If something isn't available on BD, then that’s okay because you can still get it on DVD.

bsmith
08-19-09, 12:30 PM
cpgator,

For the most part your first few responses are just clarifications to my post of what I already do.

As for the HDTV comment. I spend money on HD programming primarily for sports (football and basketball). But in general, when it comes to movies and TV watching I prefer to pick what to watch based on when I have free time and my interest at that moment, not on what just happens to be on cable at the time. I have a vast collection of older TV and movies that won't see the light of day on BR for a long time if ever. Many that have not been viewed yet. This is where my current interests are.

You make it sound like a person should be picking what to watch based on quality of video and sound over content. I haven't planned my viewing habits around what is broadcast for many years now and I'm not likely to change that just to watch something in higher video/sound quality when there is something else I'd prefer to watch that only happens to be on a DVD.

You miss the point, I'm not against BR and don't feel I need to replace my collection to go BR. In fact, I purposely haven't bought any content produced in the past few years that is both available in BR and DVD because I would most likey get it in the BR format. All my purchases have been based on my current interests which are not available on BR.

So as you should be able to see, I'm not refusing to watch HD movies on Comcast. I'm just watching the content I feel like watching at the time and it just doesn't correspond to a cable viewing schedule.

Maybe you like flipping around HD channels to see what to watch based on what is showing at the time. To me that is too limiting.

Bishop_99
08-19-09, 12:36 PM
Similar thing happened to me when DVD came out. I can't deny it, the appeal of DVD was great, the movie was in a disc, I didn't have to rewind it, and it brought a lot of extra features. Ultimately I just felt like I had spent enough money on VHS and I didn't want to buy a much more expensive machine and spend extra money to buy the movies I already had. Over the years it felt like DVD's were pushed down my throat in terms of promotion and the earlier releases they gave DVD movies. I was having a much harder time renting and buying VHS movies. I just lost interest in movies over that time and didn't upgrade to DVD. It wasn't until 2007 that I bought my first DVD player but at that point there was nothing special to it any more and I just ended up buying a total of 10 movies. I had an HDTV and the image of the DVD didn’t look good. I wanted to enjoy the full potential of my HDTV and decided not to waste much money in DVD movies but instead wait until Blu-ray was in reach and start collecting again.

The upgrade to Blu-ray was extremely easy for me because I didn't put much money into the DVD market. I bought my first Blu-ray player in may and I'm up to about 39 movies already. I do imagine though that the people who invested so much money in DVD's are very bitter towards Blu-ray as they see a new technology is here and the studios will end up putting their favorite format in the back seat. I just don't see any other reason why people say they will never upgrade if they have an HDTV. The market will move towards Blu-ray in similar fashion as the market moved to HDTV’s. Those are about the only TV’s you see in the stores right now.

The studios will push Blu-ray forward and provide less and less features to DVD's and give Blu-ray earlier releases to push the market that way. Heck, when the lowest end Blu-ray players are about $50.00 there won't be any need to produce new DVD players. The studio could also cut the DVD release of a movie and only include it as a bonus disc in a Blu-ray movie. Nothing you can do about it, either upgrade to Blu-ray or just wait a few years to cool off and jump on the next technology like I did back in the late 90’s.

bsmith
08-19-09, 12:42 PM
^^ Have you watched any good Blu-ray discs for PQ/AQ? For your setup, the difference would be huge (and mind-blowing). 1080p Blu-ray High Definition is far better than OTA High Definition is.

No, but I'm sure it would be. Again, for me it is all about content first and fore most. When DVD's first came out I sometimes watched things just to see the quality differences between DVD and VHS. That doesn't interest me anymore.

Having been watching and collecting DVD's from the beginning. I went through the transition of watching movie content from my era (70's+) to branching way back to 30's. And now TV shows primarily from the 50's through 60's.

In a way, it is not that I have no interest in BR, but BR currently has no interest in producing the content I'm most interested in. As a result, I feel no need to put money into something that would most likely only improve upon a small percentage of my viewing. As BR moves either to content I'm interested in or I move closer to what is currently being marketed on BR, I will sure get a player and purchase BR content. At that times, I'll bet both will be cheaper.

bsmith
08-19-09, 12:55 PM
In addition, In the past I was always about having the best quality and double and triple dipping all the time to get there. But as I got into older content I came to realize top quality was not always available (not saying that some older movies on DVD don't look better then some from the 70's and later, because some do which is a slight on how badly some content has been maintained). Once coming to this realization and really enjoying some excellent content in less then desireable condition (some might even say unwatchable) I found I no longer needed the best quality video to enjoy what I was watching. I think that is why many think DVD is good enough. Would I prefer to watch a BR over a DVD of the same content, of course. But will I choose a BR over a DVD of differing content just because it is a BR, definitely not. Content rules not format.

DeadMADMAN
08-19-09, 01:08 PM
I will mirror what many others have said and say that while this is indeed discrimination, it does not fit the legal definition of it and is therefore not covered under the law.

cpgator
08-19-09, 01:13 PM
You make it sound like a person should be picking what to watch based on quality of video and sound over content.

Not sure why you got that impression. I watch a lot of DVDs because the movies are not on BD. But if they are on BD, then I watch the BD.

Let me ask this - you had a choice to purchase an HDTV and a regular TV, but you chose the HDTV. You have a choice to watch TV programming in HD or regular broadcast, but you chose HD. So why if a movie is available in both DVD and BD, do you chose DVD? And more importantly, why complain about the new format, but not complain about HDTVs and HD programming.

And this isn't necessarily directed at you, more of a general question.

orangerunner
08-19-09, 01:31 PM
Similar thing happened to me when DVD came out. I can't deny it, the appeal of DVD was great, the movie was in a disc, I didn't have to rewind it, and it brought a lot of extra features. Ultimately I just felt like I had spent enough money on VHS and I didn't want to buy a much more expensive machine and spend extra money to buy the movies I already had. Over the years it felt like DVD's were pushed down my throat in terms of promotion and the earlier releases they gave DVD movies. I was having a much harder time renting and buying VHS movies. I just lost interest in movies over that time and didn't upgrade to DVD. It wasn't until 2007 that I bought my first DVD player but at that point there was nothing special to it any more and I just ended up buying a total of 10 movies. I had an HDTV and the image of the DVD didn’t look good. I wanted to enjoy the full potential of my HDTV and decided not to waste much money in DVD movies but instead wait until Blu-ray was in reach and start collecting again..

My experience was similar. I stopped buying VHS around 1995 after amassing about 250 movies. After watching Laser Disc the quality/pan & scan/macrovision interference picture of VHS bothered me.

I, too lost interest in movies until the spring of 2003 when DVD had finally matured enough and the players were in $150 range.

The upgrade to Blu-ray was extremely easy for me because I didn't put much money into the DVD market. I bought my first Blu-ray player in may and I'm up to about 39 movies already. I do imagine though that the people who invested so much money in DVD's are very bitter towards Blu-ray as they see a new technology is here and the studios will end up putting their favorite format in the back seat. I just don't see any other reason why people say they will never upgrade if they have an HDTV. The market will move towards Blu-ray in similar fashion as the market moved to HDTV’s. Those are about the only TV’s you see in the stores right now..

I think the apathy or bitterness towards Blu-ray comes from the pricing of Blu-ray machines and discs compared to their DVD counterparts.

When you put down $250 on a machine and $20 average for a movie you want to feel some reassurance that the format will still be relevent. With prices remaining high, at least here in Canada, I don't feel that way.

Look at HD-DVD buyers. Sure they can still watch their movies they bought, but with nothing new coming out, your enjoyment of that machine is rather limited.

The studios will push Blu-ray forward and provide less and less features to DVD's and give Blu-ray earlier releases to push the market that way. Heck, when the lowest end Blu-ray players are about $50.00 there won't be any need to produce new DVD players. The studio could also cut the DVD release of a movie and only include it as a bonus disc in a Blu-ray movie. Nothing you can do about it, either upgrade to Blu-ray or just wait a few years to cool off and jump on the next technology like I did back in the late 90’s.

When Blu-ray players hit $50, there's no argument, Blu-ray has taken over the market and no one will complain about DVD being edged out of the market.

Until then, there is skepticism as to whether we are being "forced" to accept an expensive substitute format for a very good quality & affordable existing one that only offers marginally better picture and sound and really no other practical benefits.

It's a bit of a catch-22. If Blu-ray remains a high-profit product, which it is now, it will never be a high volume product. It will take higher volume to bring Blu-ray prices down to the current DVD prices. In the end will the studios have the same complaints as they have now with DVD which is flat(er) sales and low profit margins?

If so, we're on to the next format or delivery.

Lastdaysofrain
08-19-09, 01:33 PM
I think the initial idea of this thread is a bit silly, there is no way there is a legal liablity or "discrimination" against DVD consumers.

That being said, I probably won't ever end up buying a Blu Ray, I'm not against it, it's nice to have HD content available on discs. I'm just happy with the DVDs I already own and I don't forsee enough Blu Ray content coming out (again it's mostly new releases and I'm interested in catalog titles and TV on DVD) to warent the purchase.

I get plenty of HD content on demand and on cable when I want to watch HD movies on my set up.

If somewhere down the line Blu Ray player prices drop below $100, and my current quality DVD player dies, sure, I might buy a player, but I suspect by that time physical media will probably be on the outs and an on demand/download format will be the norm for HD content.

DivxGuy
08-19-09, 02:04 PM
It's a bit of a catch-22. If Blu-ray remains a high-profit product, which it is now, it will never be a high volume product. Blu-ray is already a high-volume product. Not as high volume as DVD, but high volume nonetheless. Sufficiently high volume to occupy more and more space at Wal-Mart and other mass market retailers.

orangerunner
08-19-09, 02:16 PM
Blu-ray is already a high-volume product. Not as high volume as DVD, but high volume nonetheless. Sufficiently high volume to occupy more and more space at Wal-Mart and other mass market retailers.

"High Volume" is loose term. With Blu-ray currently averaging 10-12% of the home video sales, I wouldn't attach the tag of "High Volume" to Blu-ray just yet.

Yes, they are taking up more shelf space in stores but at $30 a pop for a new release it doesn't appear they're taking up that much cash register space.

DivxGuy
08-19-09, 02:50 PM
"High Volume" is loose term. With Blu-ray currently averaging 10-12% of the home video sales, I wouldn't attach the tag of "High Volume" to Blu-ray just yet.

Yes, they are taking up more shelf space in stores but at $30 a pop for a new release it doesn't appear they're taking up that much cash register space.
I'd consider 10-12% of today's huge video market as high volume. And it'll only grow.

Regarding new releases, are DVD versions that much cheaper than their Blu-ray counterparts?

orangerunner
08-19-09, 03:00 PM
I'd consider 10-12% of today's huge video market as high volume. And it'll only grow.

Regarding new releases, are DVD versions that much cheaper than their Blu-ray counterparts?

I can only speak for the store prices here in Vancouver, Canada but this weeks advertised special at Best Buy on Hannah Montana is:

$29.95 Blu-ray 3 disc (Blu-ray + DVD + Digital Copy)
$18.99 for the bare-bones DVD
$29.99 DVD 2 disc (DVD + Digital Copy) - obviously priced that no one will actually buy it.

Last House on the Left is $29.99 Blu-ray/ $23.99 DVD

Tyson is $32.99 Blu-ray / $24.99 DVD

Anywhere from a $6-$11 difference is significant to most people's wallets.

DivxGuy
08-19-09, 03:20 PM
I can only speak for the store prices here in Vancouver, Canada but this weeks advertised special at Best Buy on Hannah Montana is:

$29.95 Blu-ray 3 disc (Blu-ray + DVD + Digital Copy)
$18.99 for the bare-bones DVD
$29.99 DVD 2 disc (DVD + Digital Copy) - obviously priced that no one will actually buy it.

Last House on the Left is $29.99 Blu-ray/ $23.99 DVD

Tyson is $32.99 Blu-ray / $24.99 DVD

Anywhere from a $6-$11 difference is significant to most people's wallets.
It is, but expect a differential. Always. It was that way with vinyl versus CD, and VHS versus DVD. And even Laserdisc versus VHS. There is always a premium for the superior format.

And the complainers here would be well-served to note that collectible media becomes obsolete faster and faster. They should be bearing that in mind before they amass vast collections of titles they're only going to watch once.

bsmith
08-19-09, 03:41 PM
Not sure why you got that impression. I watch a lot of DVDs because the movies are not on BD. But if they are on BD, then I watch the BD.

Let me ask this - you had a choice to purchase an HDTV and a regular TV, but you chose the HDTV. You have a choice to watch TV programming in HD or regular broadcast, but you chose HD. So why if a movie is available in both DVD and BD, do you chose DVD? And more importantly, why complain about the new format, but not complain about HDTVs and HD programming.

And this isn't necessarily directed at you, more of a general question.

First off I've not complained about the new format and never will. However, I'm just not a user of the format at this time and I'm currently not in a rush to do so. I don't concur with the thread title but was just clarifying a stated position.

I guess I should clarify something and then maybe my position will be clearer. Other then some sports I rarely watch cable/network TV at all. It has been this way for probably five years now. Almost all my TV and movies watching over the last five years has come from Netflix and my own DVD collection. I cancelled Netflix about a year ago because I had too many items in my own collection that had gone unwatched and wanted to catch up on.

As for buying an HDTV over a regular TV, digital is still better then analog even if not HD. I have two HDTV's and a projection system.

My TV watching is actually based on DVD's not HD. About 95% of my TV watching is not available in HD. The one's that are (e.g., 24) I am years behind the network broadcasts and prefer to watch commercial free when I feel like and to watch multiple episodes at a time if it suits me. The convenience factors for me far out weigh the additional quality factors. Maybe I will move to BR when I get to the latest season of 24 but I'm only up to season 4 seasons so far. So other then sports I rarely watch TV in HD.

I would say 98% of the movies I'm currently watching aren't available in BR, and while some may be available broadcast in HD (most probably from upconverted sources and my system can do that) there is the convenience factor again. I watch what I want to when I want to, and not based on some programming schedule. DVD's give me that freedom.

In my case, if I went BR now I would probably only get the benefit of seeing <5% in HD, so why bother. When that percentage changes to being something more like 25% then I will consider a BR player.

So in reality I am not really passing up on an available BR option over DVD. The BR or broadcast HD options are mostly not available for the content I choose to watch, or inconvenient for the few situations they may be. At least for now.

orangerunner
08-19-09, 04:05 PM
It is, but expect a differential. Always. It was that way with vinyl versus CD, and VHS versus DVD. And even Laserdisc versus VHS. There is always a premium for the superior format.

And the complainers here would be well-served to note that collectible media becomes obsolete faster and faster. They should be bearing that in mind before they amass vast collections of titles they're only going to watch once.

I agree a new technology should come with a higher price tag. With CD, consumers went from paying $7.99 for a cassette or record to $12.99 or more for the CD.

The difference is CD was perceived by the public to be a vastly superior product to their records and tapes and they accepted the higher price. It worked, CD was a huge success. The same goes for VHS to DVD.

Blu-ray's challenge is convincing people that it is vastly superior to DVD to justify the bigger price tag.

This is difficult because Blu-ray, like DVD, has chapter stops, extras, it's on a shiny disc the same size, there's no rewinding etc. The enhanced picture and sound are the only real selling features, which only work if you have an HDTV. Even then it has to be a very large HDTV.

It was much like when JVC launched the S-VHS format with Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade back in 1989. Sure, the picture and sound were better than regular VHS but other than that it was seen by the public as the same product except more expensive.

The format was seen as the best of both worlds. It had picture and sound similar to Laserdisc and yet had the recording features of VHS. JVC could see it wasn't going to work at the consumer level and decided to market it as a semi-professional format with moderate success.

Good point noting that your collection becomes obsolete faster and faster.
In ten years I collected 300 pre-recorded VHS tapes paying as much as $30 each for many of them.

With DVD I wised-up and only bought the films I really cared about or knew I would watch more than once. In eight years, I've collected about 70 DVDs, most of which I paid under $10 for.

Mr. Salty
08-19-09, 04:09 PM
I can only speak for the store prices here in Vancouver, Canada but this weeks advertised special at Best Buy on Hannah Montana is:
This is why I buy virtually all my discs at Amazon.com (just like when DVDs first came out and in-store prices were significantly higher than online):

Hannah Montana:
$29.95 Blu-ray 3 disc (Blu-ray + DVD + Digital Copy)
$18.99 for the bare-bones DVD
$29.99 DVD 2 disc (DVD + Digital Copy) - obviously priced that no one will actually buy it.
Amazon: $24.99 Blu-ray, cheaper than the 2-disc DVD at Best Buy

Last House on the Left is $29.99 Blu-ray/ $23.99 DVD
Amazon: $24.99 Blu-ray, $1 more than the DVD at Best Buy

Tyson is $32.99 Blu-ray / $24.99 DVD
Amazon: $26.99 Blu-ray, $2 more than the DVD at Best Buy

Trevor
08-19-09, 04:17 PM
This is why I buy virtually all my discs at Amazon.com (just like when DVDs first came out and in-store prices were significantly higher than online):

Hannah Montana:

Amazon: $24.99 Blu-ray, cheaper than the 2-disc DVD at Best Buy


Amazon: $24.99 Blu-ray, $1 more than the DVD at Best Buy


Amazon: $26.99 Blu-ray, $2 more than the DVD at Best Buy
And that is why many of us rarely buy from Amazon, but wait a couple months or for coupons/CH and average $5 a SD and $8 a BD. :)

orangerunner
08-19-09, 04:32 PM
This is why I buy virtually all my discs at Amazon.com (just like when DVDs first came out and in-store prices were significantly higher than online):

Hannah Montana:

Amazon: $24.99 Blu-ray, cheaper than the 2-disc DVD at Best Buy


Amazon: $24.99 Blu-ray, $1 more than the DVD at Best Buy


Amazon: $26.99 Blu-ray, $2 more than the DVD at Best Buy

It's all relative where you decide to shop. I imagine the Hannah Montana DVD is cheaper on Amazon as well.

The $6-$11 price gap between the two formats probably still exists whether you shop at Best Buy or Amazon.

cpgator
08-19-09, 04:38 PM
And that is why many of us rarely buy from Amazon, but wait a couple months or for coupons/CH and average $5 a SD and $8 a BD. :)

Dude, enough with all the coupon and CH posts. Of course, with anything, if you have a coupon, wait long enough or buy used, you can get it for cheaper.

We get it.

You do realize that some people don't want to wait months to get a movie or join some club? Right?

Trevor
08-19-09, 05:26 PM
Dude, enough with all the coupon and CH posts. Of course, with anything, if you have a coupon, wait long enough or buy used, you can get it for cheaper.

We get it.

You do realize that some people don't want to wait months to get a movie or join some club? Right?
No! Really? And you do realize that there is no waiting with CH, right? And I basically never buy used btw.

I've mentioned my CH/coupons/numbers maybe twelve times, once each in twelve different threads over the past year. If you have a good memory or have stumbled upon it enough to bother you, I apologize. I don't bring it up all the time, it just seemed an appropriate response at that moment. Just as you deemed the above an appropriate response.

GenPion
08-19-09, 06:13 PM
I'm pretty sure I average out to $10 a Blu-ray. So that's not quite Trevor's $8 figure, but it's far from being that bad either.

Goldblum
08-19-09, 10:46 PM
Anyone that bought into HD DVD has a pretty compelling reason to dislike Blu-ray. Maybe not the technology itself, but most definitely the forces behind it.

The format war left a bad taste in the mouth of many consumers, and not just those that picked Red over Blu.

Dude, the "war" officially ended over a year and a half ago and was dying long before that. Time to move on.

I don't understand why people take these decisions so personally, especially after so much time has passed. I can understand being pissed at the time, but come on now.

DivxGuy
08-19-09, 11:39 PM
Dude, the "war" officially ended over a year and a half ago and was dying long before that. Time to move on.

I don't understand why people take these decisions so personally, especially after so much time has passed. I can understand being pissed at the time, but come on now.
Looking back, HD-DVD was clearly the underdog and those of us who bought in should have expected what happened.

Cheato
08-20-09, 11:00 AM
^ Hindsight is 1080p.

Trevor
08-20-09, 11:01 AM
I agree that bitterness over "the war" is a silly reason to be anti-blu now.

But couldn't one easily take exception with the last two posts?

Yes, HD was the underdog, but right up to the end, there was big potential for it to swing either way, right? Didn't one major studio almost commit to red, before switching at the last minute to blu, causing the rest of the studios to follow suit?

But again, not trying to bring that dreck up again. Blu won, it looks great, and can be found almost as cheap as SD.

cpgator
08-20-09, 12:01 PM
Looking back, HD-DVD was clearly the underdog and those of us who bought in should have expected what happened.

I bought into HD-DVD because it was first and because BD had some quality issues. Once I became happy with BD, I started buying both. Then HD-DVD went away, and I now only purchase BD. Not a big deal and I still enjoy the movies I have on HD-DVD.

I never tried to guess who would win out - i just was interested in enjoying what was currently available.

toddly6666
08-20-09, 12:33 PM
We should put all HD-DVD owners in a refugee camp and let them rot there.

Gizmo
08-20-09, 12:37 PM
I'd like to add that DVD revenues are dropping while Blu-ray revenues are rising. Blu-ray margins are several times those of DVD, just like DVD margins were once several times those of VHS. N

DVD is a 10+ year old product that has exhausted most of its catalog while Blu-ray is just now growing. Of course Blu-ray would be increasing :lol:

Gizmo
08-20-09, 12:41 PM
Blu-ray is already a high-volume product. Not as high volume as DVD, but high volume nonetheless. Sufficiently high volume to occupy more and more space at Wal-Mart and other mass market retailers.

FYI - Wal-Mart recently cut back on Blu-ray titles at most of their stores. And high-volume are typical Day and Date titles. Catalog titles may only sell a few thousand copies a month even if its 'new to Blu'.

Gizmo
08-20-09, 12:43 PM
And for all those that are bitching - go to Wal-mart/Best Buy and grab a Blu-ray player for $100. It'll still play all your DVDs - I promise.

bsmith
08-20-09, 01:02 PM
And for all those that are bitching - go to Wal-mart/Best Buy and grab a Blu-ray player for $100. It'll still play all your DVDs - I promise.

Ahhh...but will it do it as well. Personally, the only BR player I would get for dual purpose BR and SD playback at this time would be the Oppo, which costs $499.

DivxGuy
08-20-09, 01:07 PM
FYI - Wal-Mart recently cut back on Blu-ray titles at most of their stores. And high-volume are typical Day and Date titles. Catalog titles may only sell a few thousand copies a month even if its 'new to Blu'.That's the case with catalog titles of any format and explains why most catalog titles don't appear on a format until several years after its introduction.

Gizmo
08-20-09, 01:24 PM
Ahhh...but will it do it as well. Personally, the only BR player I would get for dual purpose BR and SD playback at this time would be the Oppo, which costs $499.

What DVD players are you guys using now? Most BD players will do a better job upscaling DVDs then a $100 DVD player bought at Best Buy. Oppo is a bit extreme.

jjcool
08-20-09, 01:42 PM
This is why I buy virtually all my discs at Amazon.com (just like when DVDs first came out and in-store prices were significantly higher than online):

Hannah Montana:

Amazon: $24.99 Blu-ray, cheaper than the 2-disc DVD at Best Buy


Amazon: $24.99 Blu-ray, $1 more than the DVD at Best Buy


Amazon: $26.99 Blu-ray, $2 more than the DVD at Best Buy

And when you compare prices of dvds with their blue ray counterparts at amazon, you still get that $7-10 difference.

cpgator
08-20-09, 01:47 PM
Ahhh...but will it do it as well. Personally, the only BR player I would get for dual purpose BR and SD playback at this time would be the Oppo, which costs $499.

You do realize you can keep your current DVD player, right? I use my DVD player for DVDs and my BD player for BD. Works out just fine.

bsmith
08-20-09, 01:57 PM
What DVD players are you guys using now? Most BD players will do a better job upscaling DVDs then a $100 DVD player bought at Best Buy. Oppo is a bit extreme.

Not according to most of the reviews I've read. Many don't regard quality SD playback as a priority. Maybe for you the Oppo is extreme but not to me and others that want the best output of our existing SD collections as well.

Perception in the value of improved output quality is subjective, which is probably why some don't feel that HD is absolutely necessary for them. But I would think that someone that craves HD would also crave the best upconversion and processing available for SD content as well.

bsmith
08-20-09, 02:08 PM
You do realize you can keep your current DVD player, right? I use my DVD player for DVDs and my BD player for BD. Works out just fine.

Yes, I do. I was just referring to a comment suggesting that a low-end BR player could do as good a job with SD content as many upscaling DVD players.

Interestingly, enough some people either don't want to deal with multiple players or don't have space for another player and would want a single player solution. That is part of the reason many have an interest in the Oppo. I'm not one that needs that, but I'd still prefer the Oppo.

In addition, some prefer not to replace a high-end receiver that just happen to be out of date with the HD audio formats. So a BR player with quality analog outputs is necessary in order to take advantage of HD audio. Many of your cheap BR players do not provides this support.

Gizmo
08-20-09, 04:09 PM
Not according to most of the reviews I've read. Many don't regard quality SD playback as a priority. Maybe for you the Oppo is extreme but not to me and others that want the best output of our existing SD collections as well.

Perception in the value of improved output quality is subjective, which is probably why some don't feel that HD is absolutely necessary for them. But I would think that someone that craves HD would also crave the best upconversion and processing available for SD content as well.

Most of those SD comparisons are towards a high-level SD upconverter. Assuming a good chunk of people simply have a Sony/Toshiba/whatever upconverter almost any BD player on the market will provide similar if not better quality.

Gizmo
08-20-09, 04:12 PM
In addition, some prefer not to replace a high-end receiver that just happen to be out of date with the HD audio formats. So a BR player with quality analog outputs is necessary in order to take advantage of HD audio. Many of your cheap BR players do not provides this support.

Many actually do. You may have to spend $200 or so, but I could recommend several with Analog outputs. Fact is - many people have since upgraded and putting in additional hardware when most people are just going to connect directly to their TV is stupid. I'd rather see cheaper players without Analog.

bsmith
08-20-09, 04:37 PM
Most of those SD comparisons are towards a high-level SD upconverter. Assuming a good chunk of people simply have a Sony/Toshiba/whatever upconverter almost any BD player on the market will provide similar if not better quality.

Most of the comparisons I've seen have been regarding BR players of $250 and up (last year it would have been more like $500 and up) against high-end SD upconverters. And most don't fair well because they usually only contain the most basic of upconverting processing capabilities. Which isn't necessarily a slight if they are trying to provide quality BR capabilities at a price point, unless one also has a high interest in using it for SD as well.

Which makes me question what upconverting capabilities a $100 BR player would have. Now if someone is using a $50 DVD player then maybe they would be happy with the SD playback of a $100 BR player. But a $100 BR player would not satisfy the needs of many of us and that is more of the point I was making.

bsmith
08-20-09, 04:44 PM
Many actually do. You may have to spend $200 or so, but I could recommend several with Analog outputs. Fact is - many people have since upgraded and putting in additional hardware when most people are just going to connect directly to their TV is stupid. I'd rather see cheaper players without Analog.

Just because it supports analog out doesn't necessarily mean it provides a quality output, you still have to consider the DACs involved. What good is it to have a high-end receiver with quality DACs if earlier in the chain you are going to use cheap DACs in a BR player. Just referencing that just because $100 BR players are available it doesn't mean it's a good fit for everyone.

Gizmo
08-20-09, 08:28 PM
So now you want a cheap Blu-ray player with analogs? Well, act quick as the CEs are moving away from Analog as it adds too much to cost of players. Besides a few "premium" players you won't be seeing much analog out there. Sony has already stopped production of their last (besides the very expensive ones available in speciality shops) analog player, the S550.

bsmith
08-20-09, 08:49 PM
So now you want a cheap Blu-ray player with analogs? Well, act quick as the CEs are moving away from Analog as it adds too much to cost of players. Besides a few "premium" players you won't be seeing much analog out there. Sony has already stopped production of their last (besides the very expensive ones available in speciality shops) analog player, the S550.

I never said I wanted a cheap player. But when people continue to make references that you can get a player for cheap (only $100), it comes off as if they are saying there no logical reason not to get one. For so little, why not right?

Well I have just been clarifying why someone might not be ready to jump aboard just yet. For example, that the majority of content they are most interested in is not currently available. And that even though players can be had cheap does not mean that those are players they would consider worth purchasing.

Players with internal decoders and analog outputs really only began appearing last summer. I highly doubt they are going to go away anytime soon. It is an extra expense to produce and I wouldn't purchase a sub $200 unit with those capabilities anyway since for that price it would likely have had to cut corners some where. The likelihood is that these players will cost anywhere from $400 and up to maintain a quality product. I don't mind that at all and will pursue it when I feel it is worth my while based on more content of interest becoming available within the format. Until then why spend the money on a still evolving technology when each generation released is better then the previous.

Gizmo
08-21-09, 12:31 PM
I never said I wanted a cheap player. But when people continue to make references that you can get a player for cheap (only $100), it comes off as if they are saying there no logical reason not to get one. For so little, why not right?

Well I have just been clarifying why someone might not be ready to jump aboard just yet. For example, that the majority of content they are most interested in is not currently available. And that even though players can be had cheap does not mean that those are players they would consider worth purchasing.

The majority of people in this thread are bitching about new titles that have BD Exclusive features. So $100 to play those title (which people are complaining about) makes sense.

Players with internal decoders and analog outputs really only began appearing last summer. I highly doubt they are going to go away anytime soon. It is an extra expense to produce and I wouldn't purchase a sub $200 unit with those capabilities anyway since for that price it would likely have had to cut corners some where. The likelihood is that these players will cost anywhere from $400 and up to maintain a quality product. I don't mind that at all and will pursue it when I feel it is worth my while based on more content of interest becoming available within the format. Until then why spend the money on a still evolving technology when each generation released is better then the previous.

Analog has been in Blu-ray since day One - you might mean players that internally decode both TrueHD and DTS MA...which would be correct. However the CEs are moving away from Analog (in BD Players) since most receivers are now HDMI capable. Why keep putting (expensive) features into a player that few are going to need?

The Man with the Golden Doujinshi
08-21-09, 12:40 PM
FYI - Wal-Mart recently cut back on Blu-ray titles at most of their stores. And high-volume are typical Day and Date titles. Catalog titles may only sell a few thousand copies a month even if its 'new to Blu'.

And it was only last year when they expanded that section because it was the way of the future. You know, the place where we'll spend the rest of our lives.

DivxGuy
08-21-09, 02:48 PM
And it was only last year when they expanded that section because it was the way of the future. You know, the place where we'll spend the rest of our lives.
Somehow I doubt that any Wal-Mart store ever had a healthy selection of Laserdisc or S-VHS or any other niche format.

Blu-ray is not a niche format, if only because of the PS3, which Sony expects to sell 150 million units of by its ninth year on the market.

Gizmo
08-21-09, 04:46 PM
Somehow I doubt that any Wal-Mart store ever had a healthy selection of Laserdisc or S-VHS or any other niche format.

Blu-ray is not a niche format, if only because of the PS3, which Sony expects to sell 150 million units of by its ninth year on the market.

VHS was not that much a consumer product though. Besides some titles studios put out they did not have Day and Dates 3 months (I'm sure there were some though) after release and the prices were pretty high. It's a totally different ballgame.

The Man with the Golden Doujinshi
08-21-09, 05:37 PM
which Sony expects to sell 150 million units of by its ninth year on the market.

Sony has expected a lot of things in terms of sales with the PS3. Those expectations have usually not come true.

Gizmo
08-21-09, 06:24 PM
Sony has expected a lot of things in terms of sales with the PS3. Those expectations have usually not come true.

Same can also be said about Blu-ray where they continue to lower their hardware/software expectations.

Alan Smithee
08-21-09, 09:50 PM
The only studio release on S-VHS that I know of was Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, which came with some S-VHS decks. I was sort of hoping for that format to take off and replace laserdisc since I didn't like the side breaks on those, but twas not to be.

Willo007
08-26-09, 01:25 AM
Redbox sues WB over release window

Backed by court approval to proceed with an antitrust suit against Universal Studios Home Entertainment, Redbox threw another punch at the major studios, suing Warner Home Video on similar grounds.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Delaware, is in response to Warner’s move last week to delay selling titles to the largest U.S. movie-rental kiosk operator until four weeks after their street date. Universal and 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment are imposing similar delays on Redbox and other DVD rental kiosk operators. Redbox also is suing Fox. The three studios represented a combined 40% of the DVD rental market, according to Rentrak.

Coinstar-owned Redbox called the suit an effort to “protect consumers’ rights to access” to new titles. “Warner Home Video’s actions come at the expense of consumers,” Mitch Lowe, president of Redbox, said in a statement.

Executives at Warner couldn’t immediately be reached.

Redbox on Monday got a greenlight from U.S. District Court judge Robert Kugler to pursue its lawsuit against Universal on antitrust grounds. The judge did grant Universal dismissal of counts related to copyright misuse and interference with Redbox’s business relationships with vid wholesalers Ingram Entertainment and VPD.

Like the earlier two actions, Redbox’s new suit against Warner charges the studio with copyright misuse, tortious interference with business relationships and multiple antitrust violations. As in the other actions, the retailer is seeking injunctive relief and monetary damages.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118007453.html?categoryid=20&cs=1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Warner Home Video’s actions come at the expense of consumers,”
-Can I sue now?

:D

Solid Snake
08-26-09, 01:36 AM
That's just funny and somewhat serious.