How Much Does Studio Format Neutrality Help Blu-Ray?

[Bluray_ne1]

In looking at the recent releases of Cars, Fantastic 4 2, Ratatouille, & Day After Tomorrow, it appears that Sony, Fox and Disney are pulling out all the stops on their premier releases. Top notch video transfers and multiple
lossless audio tracks fill up the 50gb discs and the result is nothing less than spectacular. These releases and others really show off the capabilities of Blu-Ray.

Our remaining dual-format studio, Warner, has also had some good results with their Blu-Ray releases (2001: A Space Odyssey, Letters from Iwo Jima, The Last Samurai to name a few). However, with the balance of Warner's dual-format releases, the Blu-Ray titles suffer from the inadequacies of their rivals. Warner seems to be satisfied with creating transfers based on the limitations of the lesser format (in capacity anyway) and then porting that same transfer to Blu-Ray without taking advantage of all that Blu-Ray has to offer.

I'm sure there are financial reasons for taking what you've already done in one format and transferring it to the other, rather than re-invent the wheel. Maybe it's Warner's version of the "Fairness Doctrine" in not wanting to give more attention to one over the other. The obvious response would be, "Why complain? Take what you've got and be happy with it. At least they're producing Blu-Ray's and boosting BD sales rather than going exclusive to HD-DVD."

My point is, the average consumer with little or no knowledge of HD entertainment will see no difference between formats if Warner continues to ignore the capacity of Blu-Ray in favor of porting over HD-DVD based transfers. The best way to see the difference is the side-by-side comparison, which is essentially what Warner provides. Why doesn't Warner go the extra mile on Blu-Ray? Is it really just simple economics? Does this hurt Blu-Ray in the long run if people can look at the two virtually identical releases (except for the box of course) and say, "I don't see any difference. Why should I pick Blu over Red?"

[mystiksuicide]

Well thats the price we need to pay until Warner is Blu exclusive. Hopefully they will go blu in 2008.

[Beta-guy]

to be more accurate a neutral studio does not help us, it just doesn't hurt us, if they went HD-DVD it'd hurt if they went Blu it'd help right now they "support" us.

[Bluray_ne1]

Originally Posted by Beta-guy

to be more accurate a neutral studio does not help us, it just doesn't hurt us, if they went HD-DVD it'd hurt if they went Blu it'd help right now they "support" us.

"Format-Neutral" should probably be "Dual-Format". I meant to imply a lack of favoritism. Point well taken.

[Dalese]

Having them as a neutral studio is better than having them a HD-DVD exclusive studio. While being blu-exclusive would be better, as a neutral studio they add to the overall strength of Blu-ray as a format.

With this format war, people seriously looking to get into high-def are concerned about what titles are available to them. Yes Harry Potter is available in HD-DVD, but what about Disney, Spiderman 3, and Die Hard, POTC3, etc...?

As to Warners titles not fully utilizing Blu-rays potential, I say give it time. We are still in the early stages of the HD Media age. As time goes on quality and specs are improving. (The first wave of Blu-rays released were almost all on 25 gb discs, now almost everything is on 50's.) Warner IMO has a lot of old baggage from previous HD-DVD-leaning management and the future should be much blu-er.

[blu2]

Warner being neutral buys Blu Ray some time to get player prices down and ultimately dominate.

For anyone who wants them to make a quick decision, consider what would happen if they made the "wrong" choice. It's good for now that they're staying put and supporting both formats.

[DealsR4theDevil]

I agree that if Warner used all 50 GB of the Blu-ray disc they would finally provide a side by side comparison showing that titles will look better on Blu-ray. I also agree that when the average consumer cmpares the two side by side based on a Warner title (at this point Warner is all they can do this with), they will be lead to belive the two formats are equal, and that is terrible. But I guess its not as bad as it could be, id rather have cheap port overs than an HD DVD exlusive Warner.

[iamsparticus9]

i think everyone is mostly right but i also think it helps blu-ray in that whenever a big title gets released by warner(like a 300) and the blu-ray outperforms the hd-dvd version then it shows that the consumers for the most part really do prefer blu-ray.

[richteer]

Originally Posted by Bluray_ne1

Our remaining dual-format studio, Warner, has also had some good results with their Blu-Ray releases (2001: A Space Odyssey, Letters from Iwo Jima, The Last Samurai to name a few). However, with the balance of Warner's dual-format releases, the Blu-Ray titles suffer from the inadequacies of their rivals. Warner seems to be satisfied with creating transfers based on the limitations of the lesser format (in capacity anyway) and then porting that same transfer to Blu-Ray without taking advantage of all that Blu-Ray has to offer.

I'm sure there are financial reasons for taking what you've already done in one format and transferring it to the other, rather than re-invent the wheel. Maybe it's Warner's version of the "Fairness Doctrine" in not wanting to give more attention to one over the other. The obvious response would be, "Why complain? Take what you've got and be happy with it. At least they're producing Blu-Ray's and boosting BD sales rather than going exclusive to HD-DVD."

While I'm glad that Warner is making their titles available on Blu, I don't for one minute buy into their bogus "treat each format equally" statement. Here's why: they're quite prepared to take advantage of HD DVD's strengths when it comes to extras (e.g., the extras on 300 that aren't on the Blu-ray version), yet they're not prepared to take advantage of Blu-ray's strengths of greater space and bandwidth by giving us high-bitrate AVC encodes with lossless audio.

As someone else said, perhaps this is a hold-over from the Nickelson era and will be addressed soon (I note the use of lossless audio codecs on some recent releases). Even better would be for Warner to go Blu-exclusive so that they'd have no excuses for providing us with content that is crippled by HD DVD's inferiority.

[bajor27]

Originally Posted by iamsparticus9

i think everyone is mostly right but i also think it helps blu-ray in that whenever a big title gets released by warner(like a 300) and the blu-ray outperforms the hd-dvd version then it shows that the consumers for the most part really do prefer blu-ray.

I totally agree, I think that people being abel to see that the same title on blu ray sells better than on hd dvd really helps our format.

I think the only thing hurting us (which was also mentioned earlier) is that Warner doesn't take full advantage of the extra space so the movies look the same.

[Paden]

It hurts Warner, IMO. I'm buying movies I already own over again in Blu from other studios that deliver a better product. Other than HP I'm generally sticking with my older DVD's on WB films, for now.