Now the war is over wishfull thinkers please explain how blu will ever replace DVD.

[Geo]

How is a per/GB analysis useful?

You think they won't try to market 2 disc collectors editions anymore?

See #54.

As to your question, I think collectors editions sell based on extra content, not extra discs. If the first requires the second, that's fine. . .if the first can be produced without the second, even better. I generally find it a PITA to change discs, don't you? I certainly don't pay extra for the privilege. If some people today assume that two discs bring more value than one, it would only be on an apples-to-apples comparison.

 

[quest55720]

/me raises hand

Is it because you don't watch much tv? I am curious the only person I know who runs analog OTA just does not have money for cable.

 

[Geo]

Is it because you don't watch much tv? I am curious the only person I know who runs analog OTA just does not have money for cable.

Oh, not us. You said "knows someone" too. My mother-in-law lives on a farm in rural Minnesota. She couldn't get cable if she wanted it, and doesn't want satellite. It's a big country, y'know.

 

[AlphaWolf]

As to your question, I think collectors editions sell based on extra content, not extra discs. If the first requires the second, that's fine. . .if the first can be produced without the second, even better. I generally find it a PITA to change discs, don't you? I certainly don't pay extra for the privilege. If some people today assume that two discs bring more value than one, it would only be on an apples-to-apples comparison.

Well it seems there's studio marketing executives that would disagree with you. They always make a point of noting there's a 2nd disc in the collectors editions.

I don't think you'd save a whole lot by making a new collectors edition single disc with all of the content on it over adding a 2nd disc which only has the added content.

<edit> I own a disc changer, and really I rarely watch much of the extra content anyway, so its never been a hassle for me. I'll give you the potential for TV shows could be a win, but there's also cases where BR also has the potential to be a lose such as single episode television sales.

 

[quest55720]

So the TV set has a nicer cleaner look but who cares about the actual PICTURE displayed by the set? I mean, after all, the HD image is "nicer and cleaner" but still, the average person doesn't care?

If they cared about the actuall picture they would have an HD source hooked up to the TV. The vast majority of HD-TV owners don't have any hd source hooked up to the TV. Hell that survey last year almost half of PS3 owners had the system hook up via composite. If PQ was a concern you think they would of noticed that the PS3 looked like crap?

Most of us are guilty of it. I am guilty I ditched my 20 inch CRT monitor for a 22 inch wide screen LCD. The CRT had a much better PQ no ghosting when gaming. The form factor won me over I was able to complete redo my computer station thanks to the LCD. I have a LCD TV if I really cared about PQ I would of gotten a some sort of CRT or plasma. I did not want another huge CRT in the living room. I was to worried about the durability of the plasma. I was thinking DLP but see rainbows. So I settled for lesser PQ but gained a lot in form factor,weight and peace of mind on the durability issue. My living room looks much nicer and cleaner.

 

[quest55720]

Oh, not us. You said "knows someone" too. My mother-in-law lives on a farm in rural Minnesota. She couldn't get cable if she wanted it, and doesn't want satellite. It's a big country, y'know.

I also live in rural minnesota. I had to suffer to many years with analog OTA. Is she going to get a converter box or buy a HD-TV by chance?

 

[Geo]

TBD.

 

[Geo]

Well it seems there's studio marketing executives that would disagree with you. They always make a point of noting there's a 2nd disc in the collectors editions.

They're using that second disk as a short-hand stand in for "extras". Easy enough to do when you're compariing apples-to-apples.

 

[AlphaWolf]

They're using that second disk as a short-hand stand in for "extras". Easy enough to do when you're compariing apples-to-apples.

They don't have to say 2 disc, they could say x hours of extra content etc, but it always seems to be '2 disc'. You may choose to believe otherwise but I don't doubt that they at least believe customers see the value of a 2nd disc as higher than extra content.

 

[Geo]

They don't have to say 2 disc, they could say x hours of extra content etc, but it always seems to be '2 disc'. You may choose to believe otherwise but I don't doubt that they at least believe customers see the value of a 2nd disc as higher than extra content.

Uh huh. Well, you're a consumer. Do you believe that? Would you be happy to have a pretty labelled 2nd disc with nothing on it?

 

[pascal]

See #54.

As to your question, I think collectors editions sell based on extra content, not extra discs. If the first requires the second, that's fine. . .if the first can be produced without the second, even better. I generally find it a PITA to change discs, don't you? I certainly don't pay extra for the privilege. If some people today assume that two discs bring more value than one, it would only be on an apples-to-apples comparison.

My guess the collectors edition has higher bitrate, probably in the range of ~7Mbps. Then they need one disc for the movie alone.

I remenber Sony used to sell a "superbit" DVD, it was a one disc only without extra and high bitrate.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Uh huh. Well, you're a consumer. Do you believe that? Would you be happy to have a pretty labelled 2nd disc with nothing on it?

I believe the average consumer would see more value in getting 2 discs than 1. Sure its about the extra content, but its a lot more obvious to the consumer they are getting more when there is something physically more in the box.

 

[AlphaWolf]

My guess the collectors edition has higher bitrate, probably in the range of ~7Mbps. Then they need one disc for the movie alone.

I remenber Sony used to sell a "superbit" DVD, it was a one disc only without extra and high bitrate.

Collectors editions are mostly the same movie (likely even the same pressing of the disc to save cost? I'm not sure) with an extra disc featuring various extra content. There's often re-releases and those can vary as remastered etc.

Super-bit was a failure for whatever reason, people either didn't care about the improved quality or preferred the extra features or whatever else. Or perhaps it was just the ugly silver boxes. I know I picked up about a dozen of them in the $5 bin a while back.

 

[Ty]

If they cared about the actuall picture they would have an HD source hooked up to the TV. The vast majority of HD-TV owners don't have any hd source hooked up to the TV.

And your source for this is where by chance?

Hell that survey last year almost half of PS3 owners had the system hook up via composite. If PQ was a concern you think they would of noticed that the PS3 looked like crap?

What survey was this?

My living room looks much nicer and cleaner.

No offense but are you a female? The physical look of our TV is highly important to my wife but not me. The reverse is true for the PQ. This also goes for my co-workers, which is dominated by males.

 

[pascal]

Collectors editions are mostly the same movie (likely even the same pressing of the disc to save cost? I'm not sure) with an extra disc featuring various extra content. There's often re-releases and those can vary as remastered etc.

Super-bit was a failure for whatever reason, people either didn't care about the improved quality or preferred the extra features or whatever else. Or perhaps it was just the ugly silver boxes. I know I picked up about a dozen of them in the $5 bin a while back.

I bought superbit too.

But some collector edition really have higher bitrate. See this google search: http://www.google.com.br/search?hl=pt-BR&q=dvd+collector+edition+bitrate&btnG=Pesquisa+Google&meta=

Just to quote one link:

They’ve still got the best encoder in the business, and with a dual-layered disc to play with they have cranked the encoding bitrate on this new edition to massively high levels. On a par with - or surpassing - their “Superbit” titles in the bitrate stakes, the image here is unbothered by mere compression problems, and instead only has to contend with an occasionally high level of grain in the source material and a few film imperfections.

 

[Geo]

I believe the average consumer would see more value in getting 2 discs than 1. Sure its about the extra content, but its a lot more obvious to the consumer they are getting more when there is something physically more in the box.

Sure. This is why transitions of all stripes are a challenge to marketing teams. They need to find new ways to communicate & educate, particularly when they've relied on short-hand to communicate something previously that is no longer true in the new paradigm.

I think marketing teams didn't find it too terribly difficult to communicate the virtues of smaller/fewer media/per mins of storage in the VHS to DVD transition. I suspect they'll manage this time as well.

 

[patsu]

I really want to hear the reason you think the average joe is ever going to go to blu now they have won. I want to hear why you think they average person is going to replace 3+ dvd players in the house the car and other portable units.

DVD did not win because of the PQ/SQ. That is all HDM media has going for it. DVD won because it was a revolution. No rewind, small form factor, did not degrade every viewing, chapter skip and special features are what won the public over.

We are moving into the HD era. When the younger generation get used to HD, they will collect only HD discs (e.g., my son). They also have no reference to VHS. Entangled tapes, rewind, VHS form factor, etc. are all unknown/remote concepts to them. Old gen people like me may just buy more in HD and probably leave their SD collection alone/intact.

Also people only had to replace the 1 or 2 vcrs they had. Most people pre dvd watched movies in the living room. They added a DVD player to the living room TV plain and simple. Then something happened DVD players got insanely cheap. People started putting them in the bedroom, kids rooms, play areas kitchen ect. Then another revolution happened portable units got sub 100 dollars cars/mini vans started to come equipped with DVD players. The DVD player in the minivan is like a god send to many a parent.

Seriously you expect people to replace all those players with blu units? The issue is a blu disc plays in a blu player. It does not play in the many DVD players people have. Why would the average person buy a 30 dollar movie that won't play in the car, bedroom or where ever else they watch movies these days? People are buying less 14.99 dollar DVDs you really expect them to buy a 29.99 dollar movie and the DVD version? If the BDA studios wanted to include the DVD version that would change my stance. If the BDA came up with a real combo disk that worked well that would change my stance. As of right now only a wishfull thinker would have the notion the average person would ever go to blu. These are the same people who are to cheap to get HD cable for the new HD tv. They still run the sound through the TV speakers or at best they have a cheap HTiaB for the sound.

You bring up very valid points, but I don't think the answer is clear cut. I don't want to get sucked into long discussions. So I can only offer some perspectives for your examples above.

* HD price will always go down, while DVD price will remain low/stagnant.

* Don't forget to innovate.

The HD vendors will continue to innovate to capitalize on current and future trends. What you mentioned above are problems but may also be opportunities for Blu-ray. For portable viewing, form factor and accessible library is important. Even DVD is too big to carry around. Perhaps in the future, Blu-ray movies can carry content of multiple resolutions and you can copy the lower res ones to portable devices. Or if the box is powerful enough (like PS3), it can be dynamically transcoded and DRM'ed for portable devices.

Even if we have fiber to the homes, it may mean that P2P distribution (or super-distribution) become viable. So every Blu-ray player can now serve movies to neighbourhood and friends for a cut. It helps to lighten server load (see Xbox Live in 2007 Christmas). In the past few years, there have been startups with real contracts with major publishers doing exactly this. It does sound far-fetched but the gears have started to turn. Even Sony's Playstation Home will offer media sharing when it's fully launched.


I don't really know where we will end up. But I thought we are all techies. We should be able to see that little window high up near the ceiling that no one else could see.

 

[AlphaWolf]

The HD vendors will continue to innovate to capitalize on current and future trends. What you mentioned above are problems but may also be opportunities for Blu-ray. For portable viewing, form factor and accessible library is important. Even DVD is too big to carry around. Perhaps in the future, Blu-ray movies can carry content of multiple resolutions and you can copy the lower res ones to portable devices. Or if the box is powerful enough (like PS3), it can be dynamically transcoded and DRM'ed for portable devices.

Some DVD's already include smaller versions for portables.

 

[quest55720]

Some DVD's already include smaller versions for portables.

I noticed that also in 1 of the DVDs I got for x-mass. Wish I could remember the name of it. Very good idea IMO.

 

[Vic]

The people floating this DVD -> Tape upgrade theory (oh, how wonderful, it looks better, no rewind, etc) forget LaserDisc! I mean jesus christ, am I the only person who owned a LaserDisc, had a collection of LaserDisc movies, rented LaserDisc, etc? And before you start complaining about form factor, at the same VHS was out, Betamax was smaller, superior quality, and people were still buying music on huge LP albums. The disc-flipping stuff is hardly what offed it, cost and content is what more or less killed it. (at one point, 10% of Japanese households had LD)

What killed VHS eventually was the studios delaying and removing content. I know people who only a few years ago still used VHS, especially older people. My mother was simply forced to DVD.

VCRs have one KILLER feature that during the 80s and 90s, people still relied on and that's RECORDING (most people are not sophisticated enough to rip/burn DVDs, and DVD copiers have no where near the bootleg penetration that VHS had). Who here didn't own two VCRs, and use them to record rented movies? I had a collection of hundreds of VHSes, all copied. I used to record entire seasons of TV in the age prior to PVRs on VHS. I had every Dr Who, every Star Trek, every RoboTech, Voltron, Transformers, etc

There are two simple reasons why DVD is going to die: #1, the studios are going to kill it. They have vast libraries, and need to resell them to a new generation. They also want better DRM. #2 BD Recording (remember, the format was invented for optical recording) will make a comeback, especially in PVRs and combo-PVRs.

I'll add a third. Every new PC manufacturer and every new optical standalone player manufactured will be BD, so that even if people buy them just to use for DVD software, eventually they will start buying BDs.

I find it hilarious how people who originally supported HD-DVD have now switched arguments after they lost. On AVS forums, it's now either "no one wants HDM" or "Digital downloads are going to win." Ungraceful losers I say.

That definately seems to be affecting some people's opinion on the debate. I think some people are posting what they hope to happen.