Here is an article from the UK that outlines the recent trend of studios releasing smaller indie titles on DVD while by-passing a Blu-ray release.
Are we seeing this trend in North America yet?

https://www.filmstories.co.uk/featur...t-not-blu-ray/

For Television, it's a yes. Most Television shows are poor sellers on Blu-Ray, so they opt to go the cheaper route with DVD.

But then they'll release the HD version via Digital, which works for me.

I just bought Werner Herzog's latest documentary Meeting Gorbachev on dvd because it wasn't released on blu-ray. In fact a couple of other of his recent docs (Happy People, Lo and Behold) haven't been released on blu ray in the us either.

I remember looking for Blu-ray versions of This is Us, which is like one of the biggest shows to come out in the last few years, and finally settling on a streaming option.

Yea don't expect any TV on Blu-Ray from FOX (the studio who makes This Is Us) or anything from CBS. They've done pretty much DVD only on all their physical media TV releases.

Only thing about buying on digital is that the studio doesn't produce any extras for that format, not that they produce much anyways for DVD.

Not completely dvd-only. Bottom feeders like The Asylum went mostly dvd-only awhile ago, with only the sharknado franchise still being released on bluray.

To some extent, the really F-list garbage released by Cinedigm, Lionsgate and Vertical. (Vertical is distributed by Lionsgate over the past several years).

No point in releasing bottom feeder F-list garbage on bluray nowadays, when it will end up in the $2 bins several months later.

Does it really save them that much money to do DVD instead of Blu-ray? Surely the replication costs are practically the same these days?

Is it more of a case of, for these small runs of discs, they're only going to make one SKU, and so they go with the lowest common denominator?

Edit: I guess besides replication costs, licensing cost differences could be a factor. Especially as DVD patents are expiring as we discussed in the other thread.

Another issue is whether any distributors are willing to carry the bluray version in large enough quantities.

With dvd/bluray declining, the bottom feeder movie companies know that they're not in a favorable bargaining position. (ie. They're not able to dictate any terms).

It's odd how Blu-ray never really caught-on. For example when the industry sends out their "For Your Consideration..." samplers to the academy members for Oscar and Emmy Awards they are almost always on DVD, not Blu-ray. They are often beautifully packaged, much nicer than the retail versions, and yet the presentation itself is not even in High-Def. If they're sending these out as awards-bait, you figure they would make Blu-rays but they choose not to.

I have to give Walmart some credit in this regard, as they seem like the only mainstream retailer giving space to these kinds of titles, not all of which are F-list. I've seen a LOT of decent little films screened at TIFF end up getting DVD-only releases through labels like those noted, as well as quite a few others. Any time I visit a U.S. Walmart, I'm rather surprised at the sheer number of DTV titles lining the new release section, all of it stuff I see nowhere else. Even if a lot of it is no-budget, regional indie crap, at least there's still one non-online outlet where their work can face the public for a few weeks, even if only on DVD. As someone with an interest in these kinds of films, but less interest in streaming (just yet!), knowing that they'll end up in $2 bins (or more likely at Big Lots or Hamilton Books) down the road is a nice bonus.

Don't know about the Oscars, but the Emmy Awards are phasing out DVD screeners in 2020 in favour of a members-only streaming service:
https://www.engadget.com/2019/01/18/...-good-in-2020/

They're not going to kill a format that's selling the most units. Why would they?
The amount of people who don't have a BD player is huge, and there's still a chunk of people who don't have a 1080p TV. Release a title only on BD and you'll automatically lose a huge chunk of sales of those who can only buy DVD.

I have no hard facts on this but I'd think the number of people who own DVD players still outnumbers the number of people who own Blu-ray players. For instance, my wife is a teacher and there's no blu-ray player at school so she's not too happy that I've switched to UHD/Blu-ray/streaming format instead of Blu-ray/DVD (for the end of semester movie days). I told her try to get her to open up the network to stream this stuff instead but there's no way they're going to do that.

Many people are more than happy with DVD.
Plus there are those who need the disc to be playable in different locations (ie. in the car for the kids, from their computers/notebooks, DVD player in other parts of the house) - so they would need to buy a BD player for each one of those locations to make the movie portable.

You have to remember, many people who have 1080p TVs are still getting SD content from satellite and cable - and they have no issues with how it looks.

Heck, I don't even own a standalone Blu-ray player (I still use my PS3). We have the one for the main tv and otherwise, streaming it is (or ripping it to plex).

And how do you know this? You're making a lot of generalizations and assumptions. Who the heck still owns a 4:3, NTSC television in 2019? And even if you don't have cable and just use an antenna in 2019, all major networks transmit their signals in High Definition.

I've had DirecTV since 2003 and you don't pay anything extra for an HD signal, so your SD assumption makes no sense. Unless you're still stuck with a shitty 4:3 SD TV. Then yeah you can use the option for SD. But if you have an HDTV, which most in America have now, why would you?

I do agree that most of the Walmart crowd don't look for Blu-Rays for impulse movie buys.

I think DirecTV still has an HD access fee or some BS like that. A lot of us got it waived with a promotion but I'm pretty sure they still charge that.