Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
#76
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
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.
Last edited by anomynous; 08-17-09 at 03:06 PM.
#77
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
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?
A question for blu-ray "haters":
What kind of TV do you have and how big is it?
#78
DVD Talk Special Edition
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
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.
#79
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
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.
#80
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
+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.
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.
#81
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
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.
#82
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: In a small pocket universe hoping to someday become a Moderator Emeritus at DVDTalk.com!
Posts: 9,381
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
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.
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.
I myself will hold off on converting to Blu-Ray until I absolutely have to.
Last edited by speedy1961; 08-17-09 at 11:16 PM.
#83
DVD Talk Special Edition
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
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.
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.
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...

Last edited by orangerunner; 08-17-09 at 11:33 PM.
#84
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
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 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.
Legally and ethically, this is not only perfectly acceptable, it's the duty of the studios to their shareholders (to maximize their revenue).
#85
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
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.
#86
DVD Talk Special Edition
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
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.
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.
#87
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
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).
#88
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
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?
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?
#90
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
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.
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.
#91
DVD Talk Special Edition
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
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).
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).
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?
#92
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
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.
#93
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
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?
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.
#94
DVD Talk Special Edition
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
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.
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:
I see what you mean about placing a compressed HD file on a DVD-R as data & it would still be considered "HD".
Last edited by orangerunner; 08-18-09 at 04:51 PM.
#95
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
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.
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.
#96
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
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...
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...
#97
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Part of the Left-Wing Conspiracy
Posts: 7,528
Received 198 Likes
on
114 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
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...
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...

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.
#98
DVD Talk Special Edition
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
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.
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.
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.
#99
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
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...
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...
The format war left a bad taste in the mouth of many consumers, and not just those that picked Red over Blu.
#100
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
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.
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.