Hello,

Someone brought up a good point in a previous post. They don't think buying a movie when it comes out in BR or HD DVD would be double dipping. I feel that it is but since I can't find a defacto definition for double dipping, I would appreciate feedback. I realize that you would have a hard time buying a BR or HD DVD right now but when BR/HD DVD or some combination becomes available, I might consider buying a few of my movies in a higher definition version.

Then there are movies that come out using current DVD technology with a different codec than most DVD players can use unless they are connected to a PC - T2 (Windows Media).

Would you consider replacing a Laserdisc or a VHS with a DVD "double dipping"? If not, why would you think it is with Blu-Ray/HD-DVD?

Actually I would but I may not be among the majority. I would consider that anyone who got Star Wars or India Jones on VHS because they couldn't get it on DVD even though DVD had been out for years was led(not forced but encouraged) to double-dip.

While BR/HD DVD isn't available yet to us - they have had working models for over 3 years. The longer they hold off on releasing the technology, the more of us will probably rebuy the movies.

You are buying the movie again for a different feature - HD. I consider it a double dip when I replace VHS and Laserdisc. I am not opposed to double dipping, but it is IMHO double dipping.

paying for the same movie more than once in any home video format is double dipping.

I'm with the masses (that have posted, that is...the poll seems pretty close) in saying that if you buy the movie more than once, you've double-dipped, regardless of what format. You own the film. If you buy it again, you've double-dipped.

-JP

So, if you buy a car, and use it and enjoy it for several years, and then go out and buy a newer model of the same car later, is that considered double-dipping? Because that's the logic I'm seeing here.

I don't follow their line of reasoning either. To me, a "double dip" means a company is reissuing the same title on the same format, with just enough of a difference that some people feel compelled to buy it twice. If the second edition is announced in advance (Hellboy being one recent example), then I don't consider it a double dip. If it's on an entirely different format, I don't consider that double-dipping either. To me, double dipping implies "they didn't do it right the first time", and if it's on a format that didn't even exist at the time, I can't imagine what the problem would be there.

There is a massive difference between an HD version and the regular SD DVD. It can't be a double dip if you're not getting the same or essentially the same quality.

If you buy a DVD and use it for years and then they come out with a DTS version of that DVD, and you buy it again, it is a double dip.

IMO, the term should mean "issuing the same title in a new version that tempts people who already own that title to buy it again."

I don't think it has anything to do with the medium or the format.

RichC

Then, by this definition, movies that have been released on VHS should never have been released again on ANY format, EVER AGAIN. Because there are a lot of movies that I owned copies of on VHS that I was "tempted" to purchase again on DVD. I guess it's a good thing they "tempted" me with that "double dip", or we'd still have nothing better than the dinosaur that is VHS.

...and some movies would only be available in truncated form on 8mm reels.

These are the sort of concepts I was trying to get at in the other thread.
There's always going to be the march of progress, rebuying for newer technology is part of that, rebuying for more rave footage on the same format is a double dip.

I think it's doubledipping.
But in some cases, doubledipping is justified. If you have a HD setup and buy an HD version, and you got use out of the original version, it's justified.
The 'bad' doubledipping is when they release a Super Duper Collector's Edition or whatever, reasonably soon after the first release, or when sales start flagging, and the additions aren't 'worth it'. Of course, what's 'worth it' varies for each consumer.

Dual simultaneous releases, or announced doubledips [like LotR and PeeWee's Playhouse] are, if not necessarily 'justified', at least 'fair', in that you got fair warning.

I've got lots of VHS that I 'upgraded' to DVD. Technically that could be a 'doubledip', but since they are on different formats, and are markedly different in either content, appearance, or features, I don't consider them DDs--at least for the ones I've bought.

This makes no sense. If one is a double dip, so is the other. If one is not a double dip, then neither is the other. You can't have it both ways.

BR/HD-DVD are just as much different formats from DVD as DVD was from VHS. The fact that the discs may be similar in physical appearance doesn't mean they are the same format, any more than DVDs are the same format as CDs.

I think we are getting to something here. Some posters seem to be saying double dipping for such and such a reason is because the studio is evil. While I think there may be some studios that release a better version shortly after the original and that is a nasty practice, it doesn't really change the meaning of double dipping in my opinion, just the nature of the double dip - if you can follow my ramblings.

If I'm upgrading with the format...I don't really feel that I'm a doubledipster. If I'm buying the same title on the same format....I've doubledipped.

I think I'll stay the way I've always been and thats with the mindset of not really giving a shit.

As soon as I can buy one and a player to play it on, I'll let you know.

Of course. Anytime you buy a movie you already own, it's double dipping.

This isn't like going from VHS to LD/DVD where you're going to a totally different format. VHS had no extras, crappy pic quality, no 5.1 sound, no commentaries etc.

Going from DVD to HD-DVD/BR is just rebuying a movie for better picture quality. Really no different that replacing a non-anamorphic DVD with a re-release that has a remastered anamorphic transfer IMO, and both are double dips.

Not that there's anything wrong or negative about that. Just a semantics issue.

And so we have it... the DVD arena has become so mature that people have run out of things to complain about. So the next step? Redefine a term, and complain about THAT!

The term "double-dipping" has traditionally described re-purchasing of a film on THE SAME MEDIA. I cannot recall anyone complaining that they had to repurchase a DVD of a film they already owned on VHS. On the contrary... people were complaining about the LACK of the title on DVD when it was already available on VHS.

I'd be surprised to see anyone seriously refer to repurchasing a VHS title on DVD as "double-dipping" prior to a few weeks ago. This whole HD/BR frenzy has caused some people to simply lose their minds.

What sracer said.

I'm glad so many people have responded. At least it is clear that presently this is not a fully defined term. I'm not against all double dipping/upgrading/(insert term here) - e.g. going from VHS to DVD although I am against things like releasing a movie only in VHS (like SW) and making people wait years when DVD has been out for years or releasing a DTS version later (and not anouncing it) when they could have done that initially. I don't have an issue with movies like LOTR EE since they did make it clear a better version would be available within 6 months or so of the early edition.

I am ticked that BR/HD DVD has taken so long. I doubt that it would have taken so long if Sony or WB just said I want my movies out in high definition now. Yes there is the whole format war thing but the technology has been ready for a while now for both standards. Since the studios apply no pressure, they can reap bigger profits from all of us who double dip/upgrade/rose or whatever term you want to use.

It is a fully defined term. Show me where people referred to double-dipping as going from VHS to DVD... 1 year ago. 6 months ago. Heck, even 6 WEEKS ago.

Sure I can. Since this is an OPINION thread, I can have it however I want.
I said "technically", and "to me". I tried to make the definition both/either objective and subjective.

To me, the term 'doubledip' is inherently bad. When I think "doubledip", I think same media, not a lot of reason to upgrade. Like an SE that was three seconds additional footage. That's the 'doubledip' that gets me bitching, and resenting the company releasing it. I can see how some people would call any multiple release a doubledip, after all, if you have Star Wars on VHS, then why get it on DVD, it's the same movie. And we see some people who focus on 'releases on the same media', sometimes regardless of any additional/extra content/features. Technically getting SWT on DVD is a 'double dip', because I do have it on VHS. But it's not a 'bad' doubledip, in that there is an actual benefit/improvement [to me] to getting it on DVD.