http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/news/...les_Record/348

'M:i:III' also earned the distinction of being the biggest-selling Blu-ray and HD DVD title since the launch of both formats earlier this year. According to the Hollywood Reporter, industry sources peg combined first-week sales of 'M:i:III' at over 20,000 units on the two next-gen formats.

Of course, that's a drop in the bucket compared to the estimated 3.7 million DVD units of 'M:i:III' sold in the same timeframe. Still, a record's a record, and with top Blu-ray and HD DVD titles selling around 5,000 copies in their first week as recently as last July, 'M:i:III's first-week sales represent a significant, if slow, climb in the right direction.

Which, of course, begs the question of what the breakdown was between the two formats.

Does that include the 3-pack, or just the single movie release?
A format breakdown would be nice.

I'd be very surprised if it included the boxed set.

Hey, 20,000 pales in comparison to 3 million, but this isn't a format that's been out 10 years either. If the average disc is 5,000, then this increase is noticeable. Hopefully it'll be a hint to the studios that big titles like MI3 might be better choices to release compared to something like End of Days or Stealth.

Again...where are the breakdowns BETWEEN the formats.

That's the real juice.

This number really means nothing.

Well, I think it means *something*. It means there is growing interest in high definition formats. It would be more meaningful if it were separated, but it's still at least tangentally meaningful, although perhaps less for for studios who are HD or BD specific.

Mr Cinema: Also the fact that MI3 is a new release to any format [I think], whereas a lot of titles presently out are 'double dips'. Even in HD, I have trouble doubledipping, whereas if a new release i'm interested in came out in HD and DVD simultaneously, I'd pay (some) more for the HD.

Good point. Out of the 30 or so HD DVDs I want, I already own 90% on standard DVD. The other 10% are blind buys. I am trying to decide if rebuying these movies for $16-$25 each is really worth it when I already have them.

I do not think the source was given breakdown numbers between the formats, or the would have published them in the article.

I guess M:I3 can't be considered the financial failure/disappointment many critics made it out to be.

I thought Batman Begins sold that many copies already?

I thought Batman Begins sold a lot more.

Batman Begins might have sold more overall, but in the FIRST WEEK? Doubtful. I'll be interested to see the X3 numbers that article alluded to...

I'd say you probably won't get them unless they're very impressive.

FWIW, X3 is the first Blu-Ray, I think, to rank in the top 500 at Amazon. (494)

I think the term double dipping is used way to much these days. The term double dipping was originally used as a derogatory comment to explain the re-release of titles that were already released on that format and had little if any upgrades to the previous release. If a release is a substantial upgrade over its predecessor than it is not a double dip. A double dip does not simply refer to any title released more than once. The fact that we are referring to a new formats (HD-DVD & BD) makes using the term double dip in reference to a release on these formats even more incorrect.

Bottom line is that releases on HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are not double dips and to say they are is absolutely using the term out of context. If you dont want to upgrade a particular movie from SD to HD-DVD then that is your choice but to start calling these releases double dips is just a complete farce and a absolute misuse of the word.

PS..

If a company intentionally releases a lackluster DVD, deliberately holding back extras for an eventual re-release, that meets my definition of a double-dip.

I personally hate the term, though. I would agree that it's not a double-dip if a movie's being released on a separate format.

Fine. Wrong term. That doesn't negate the point of my post--many people likely find it difficult to dip into their wallet for the second time [thus, 'double'] for essentially the same disk, though it 'looks better' [especially when they could upconvert the original]. I'd have the same problem with the choice of buying a disk with 5.1 audio where the original that I already own has 2.0 audio--especially when the replacement disk costs 3-4 times what the first did, and resale/trade-in value is negligible.
If HDDVD/BD offered more *exclusives*, that aren't available on DVD, or that are substantially different from the DVD, it might draw more attention from Joe Consumer. Or at the least release HD/BD/DVD versions the same day. Obviously that doesn't help with catalog titles, but it's something to think about.

I still consider it a 'double dip', because I'm paying twice for the same content, though I don't consider it a 'double dip' that I should denigrate the company for.

It's really no different than buying an anamorphic release of a title that was previously non-anamorphic. You could say "well, it fits my TV better" or "I don't have to zoom this way," but what you're really after is higher resolution.

Be patient... those will be on the real double dips.

To continue debating a point no one cares about , I guess a better way of summing up my definition of a double dip is "we could've done a better job but opted not to". If there's a non-anamorphic, bare-bones release in 1999 and a loaded special edition in 2004, I don't consider that a double-dip. I don't consider an HD DVD or Blu-ray release to be a double-dip of a DVD any more than I'd consider a DVD to be a double-dip of a Laserdisc.

To me, they're both doubledips; but one is justifiable, the other is not. From a personal standpoint, I have to dip into my finances twice to buy the same movie; so I have to take that into consideration when debating that purchase. That is the 'neutral' use of doubledip, in my mind; and I don't condemn the publisher at all for releasing the movie on an alternate format. Like comics nowadays, many of them become trade paperbacks reasonably quickly, so you're buying the same content in a different format. The example you give, "here, let's churn out this release just to capitalize, then six months down the road, do the All Star Directors Cut", that's the purposeful, condemnable doubledip.
The term 'double dip' does seem to have assumed a negative connotation, much like the term 'Joe Sixpack' and certainly many others.

When DVDs first came out I remember a tiny shelf at my local Blockbuster. Mostly oddball stuff and pracically nothing near a new release. Even then I wondered if they were trying to get new format going why use such strange titles on recent movies and or some old stuff (some not really classics). Anyway I am buying the HD kit for XBOX 360 because I will give it a try at $160.00

I am positive 100% that there is no winner in the format wars. Playstation 3 is the Trojan horse bt they have producion problems and the units are so pricey. I think from a marketing point of view both formats fail. It is tough enough to convince the public who is generally happy with standard tv and standard dvd to upgrade. DVD talk has a more hardcore audience. One format would take time to get any real support. It is the simple reason that they will have to merge these technlogies one way or another. Otherwise it goes nowhere for years.

Major retailers like Walmart dont want to allow shelf space to dvds that sell 20-30K nationwide. Think how many disks they sell of most top releases.

Rob

Yes that is exatly what I was saying. If its a release that doesnt upgrade much at all and holds back for a future release that is much better than it is a worthless release and a double dip. I made that pretty clear in my post. Callin every single title that gets released again a double dip is an absolute misuse of the word. I also hate the word as people use it non stop these days to describe every single release on the market except for new releases. Its a complete joke and those people really have no grasp on the actual true meaning. Its become extremely obnoxious.

PS..

Well the numbers would highly disagree with you. The people that have upgraded to HD, especially HD-DVD have been purchasing alot of movies. I think the average so far for HD-DVD was at like 8-10 movies so far. S while you may think alot of people wont dip into thier wallet to replace titles, the numbers are showing us something very different.

PS..

Your comparing upgrading a SD DVD to a HD-DVD to upgrading a non anamorphic to an anamorphic? You must be kidding right? I am sorry but the difference between SD & HD DVD's are huge, absolutly much bigger of a difference than just switching from non anamorphic to anamorphic. This statment is just completly untrue. As a matter of fact they are about as far apart as you can get and its one of the most rediculous statments I have heard yet in this entire debate.

PS...