Replication costs actually favor Blu-ray

[richard lichtenfelt]

Hd dvd hardcore supporters always throw the costs in your face, but the 5 disc version of Blade Runner at amazon.com costs the same on both formats.
Here is a link that actually shows costs of replication: http://wesleytech.com/blu-ray-vs-hd-...zed-again/113/
Notice on the first box chart that the per disc cost of the double layer hd dvd (30gb) which is closer in size to the single layer blu-ray (25gb) the cost is the same. If you scroll further down the page you will see that for a batch of 5,000 of these discs the hd dvd costs $9,500 while the blu-ray discs cost less at $9,000.
It is obvious from these figures that if hd dvd starts putting movies on their triple layer 51gb disc that they will indeed cost more than the double layer 50gb blu-ray discs since the cost is more determined by the layer than the format. With blu-rays at 25gb per layer and hd dvds at 15gb per layer the argument about blu-ray replication being more expensive is actually a reversal of the truth.

[MOONPHASE]

dont you mean $95 and $90?

[richard lichtenfelt]

No that figure is for a batch of 5,000 discs.
Probably those costs are even less for big releases as the prices tend to drop further with increased quantity.

[Manco]

Richard... thank you for posting this fascinating and educating article. This should dispell a lot of myths about cost. We need to propagate this article far and wide.

The setup and run costs between BD and HD for a large studio are virtually neglibile. I've been to lunches at the Studios that cost more than the differences were talking here. A few thousand $$. Big deal. It means nothing for a film with a $30-$60 million dollar budget. Paramounts big ordeal over production costs for BD are total nonsense. Oh... they had to send some programmer on a visa to a traning class for a weekto learn BD-J. And that cost what...about $4000 with expenses give or take?!?!

This whole cost thing is total FUD!

[richard lichtenfelt]

Thanks Manco. Love the avatar and I can't wait for more Eastwood bds. The man is a genius of acting and directing. The Oulaw Josey Wales is one of my all time favorites.
I always suspected that the replication thing was total bs because the proponents of this theory whose comments I've seen never included any actual costs in their statements.

[dobyblue]

That link is from February. Richard Casey in his recent interview with Josh Noyes states that the replication costs themselves were about 30% more for the Blu-ray version of Nature's Journey, but that everything else was even in terms of cost and that the 30% difference in replication was a negligible difference in the big picture.

[richard lichtenfelt]

I'll bet that Mr. Casey used single layer 15gb hd dvd discs and single layer 25gb blu-ray discs. 2/3s more gb for 1/3 more cost makes blu-ray cheaper by the gb.
The chart that I linked and referred to as well as the theme of my post was comparing double layer hd dvds to single layer blu discs, as 30gb is much closer to 25gb than is 15.

[buckshot]

Originally Posted by richard lichtenfelt

No that figure is for a batch of 5,000 discs.
Probably those costs are even less for big releases as the prices tend to drop further with increased quantity.

and don't forget that since BD is outselling hd 2:1 blu probably has larger runs and costs even less. I started to write an explanation of why blu ray actually costs less than hd but it was kinda long and VERY boring unless you're a buyer or planner and are familiar with APICS.

but i'm not surprised at all that hd has been shown to be full of crap AGAIN.

[richard lichtenfelt]

Buckshot I've never read anything from you that's been boring. You inform and make me laugh quite often.

[buckshot]

Originally Posted by richard lichtenfelt

Buckshot I've never read anything from you that's been boring. You inform and make me laugh quite often.

thank you richard (sniffle) its so nice to be loved (sniffle sniffle)

here goes a boiled down version of what I wanted to write.

blu ray sells twice as many discs as hd dvd. therefore, replication costs will be substantially lower. unless hd dvd
produces large amounts of their discs in a single run and then warehouses them. the cost then is the warehousing of the materials. inventory = money not going back into the company. plus most companies have to rent warehouse space to store said inventory which they also have to insure. if the extra discs are stored by the retailers who sell them as opposed to the companies who make the discs or the movie studios, the cost falls on the retailer who will (eventually) demand a lower wholesale price for the product that they are now having to store, insure, and track. which equals less revenue for the studios, then the production lines which all comes back to why nobody wants to be in bed with hd dvd, unless they are paid to. sorry unles they are given ''advertising consideration'' money.

that's the cliff's notes version. I started writing a long speal a few weeks ago after reading the crap people at hdd and avs were writing.

[lokus]

Its all about JIT (Just In Time) inventory. Considering our disc sales are higher than HD-DVD, there is a potential for their discs to be sitting in inventory which costs everyone more money because they aren't being sold. The same thing can be said about Blu-ray but at least our movies are being sold and are circulating. If the cost of producing HD-DVD was less, it will most likely cost more in the long run due to the lack of sales. Unsold discs sitting in warehouses and on store shelves will cost companies more.

[gand41f]

Thanks Richard for posting the link.

Originally Posted by buckshot

thank you richard (sniffle) its so nice to be loved (sniffle sniffle)

here goes a boiled down version of what I wanted to write.

blu ray sells twice as many discs as hd dvd. therefore, replication costs will be substantially lower. unless hd dvd
produces large amounts of their discs in a single run and then warehouses them. the cost then is the warehousing of the materials. inventory = money not going back into the company. plus most companies have to rent warehouse space to store said inventory which they also have to insure. if the extra discs are stored by the retailers who sell them as opposed to the companies who make the discs or the movie studios, the cost falls on the retailer who will (eventually) demand a lower wholesale price for the product that they are now having to store, insure, and track. which equals less revenue for the studios, then the production lines which all comes back to why nobody wants to be in bed with hd dvd, unless they are paid to. sorry unles they are given ''advertising consideration'' money.

that's the cliff's notes version. I started writing a long speal a few weeks ago after reading the crap people at hdd and avs were writing.

That's a very convincing argument Buckshot. This may be why the HD-DVD proponents always try to paint things in vague, broad brushes ("there are potentially thousands of lines that can be converted", "the replication costs are significantly lower") without ever going into specifics. I've seen several articles saying the costs are about the same, but not one that quotes significantly different prices.

And you haven't even mentioned combos yet.

With their stupid naming choice and subsequent consumer confusion, having to press combos on the first run of any new release is pretty much built into HD-DVD's cost structure. With the number of defective discs leaking out to the marketplace, yields of combos cannot be pretty.

enjoy
gandalf

[HeavyHitter]

This is good information because the 'cheaper replication' argument is at the core FUD from HD DVD supporters talking points

[buckshot]

Originally Posted by lokus

Its all about JIT (Just In Time) inventory. Considering our disc sales are higher than HD-DVD, there is a potential for their discs to be sitting in inventory which costs everyone more money because they aren't being sold. The same thing can be said about Blu-ray but at least our movies are being sold and are circulating. If the cost of producing HD-DVD was less, it will most likely cost more in the long run due to the lack of sales. Unsold discs sitting in warehouses and on store shelves will cost companies more.

ahh I see you are wise in the kung fu production arts. that's why a lot of amazon's stuff is sold through them but actually shipped from the vendor. so their inventory on hand stays as low as possible. they don't do that with their movies though.

[WickyWoo]

I'd say it's definately true that the larger Blu volume makes up for any additional $$ HD-30 to BD-50

Its all about JIT (Just In Time) inventory. Considering our disc sales are higher than HD-DVD, there is a potential for their discs to be sitting in inventory which costs everyone more money because they aren't being sold. The same thing can be said about Blu-ray but at least our movies are being sold and are circulating. If the cost of producing HD-DVD was less, it will most likely cost more in the long run due to the lack of sales. Unsold discs sitting in warehouses and on store shelves will cost companies more.

Ideally you want to turn your discs over every 90 days.