4K Blu-ray Confirmed, Coming in

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by rdodolak

Sales still favor DVD because the majority of people are choosing what they perceive to be the lowest priced option for physical media. However, it also doesn't surprise me that 70% of the sales are DVD related when MPAA member studios report:



http://copyright.gov/1201/2015/comme..._1201_2014.pdf

http://copyright.gov/1201/2015/comments-032715/

Thus less than 30% of all content released in 2014 was released on Blu-ray. The other 70% was DVD only and thus part of the reason for higher DVD sales when compared to Blu-ray; you can't buy what isn't made available.

But what I find more peculiar is that the studios continue to offer a lesser quality product, that is SD (DVD), when HD has become the de facto standard and now they're getting ready to introduce UHD. When HD televisions were first introduced there was obviously some transition period where SD and HD televisions existed. However, the television market has long transitioned to HD sets, discontinuing SD models, and cable services have been abandoning their SD content. Yet, with physical media the studios continue to provide and push an inferior product (SD DVD) when only HD televisions can be purchased. It was one thing when consumers were watching SD content on SD sets but now we've taken a step back and are watching SD content on HD sets. Before we know it we'll be watching SD content on UHD sets and for every one step forward we're taking two steps back. Once manufacturers fully shift to UHD only televisions are the studios still going to stick with providing SD content; seems kind of silly to me?

The studios have half-a**ed their support for Blu-ray so it's no surprise that Blu-ray has sold less when compared to DVD.

I think the studios did everything they could to support Blu-ray and to get people to switch. Everything they could within reason of course. What they can't do is pull the plug on a format that still has the majority of sales. I don't think their shareholders would like that. You can only go so far to force a format down people's throats. Most consumers don't want it, and the studios don't care. DVD's are cheaper to produce anyway.

I remember back in 2011 (or was it 2012), that Disney delayed the DVD-only release of POTC: at World's End, by 30 days, in order to maximize Blu-ray combo sales. If there is going to be any phasing out of DVD, delaying it would be the place to start. But the market wasn't ready for that then and even now, since Disney (nor anyone else) has tried that on a blockbuster movie ever since.

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

I think the studios did everything they could to support Blu-ray and to get people to switch. Everything they could within reason of course. What they can't do is pull the plug on a format that still has the majority of sales. I don't think their shareholders would like that. You can only go so far to force a format down people's throats. Most consumers don't want it, and the studios don't care. DVD's are cheaper to produce anyway.

I remember back in 2011 (or was it 2012), that Disney delayed the DVD-only release of POTC: at World's End, by 30 days, in order to maximize Blu-ray combo sales. If there is going to be any phasing out of DVD, delaying it would be the place to start. But the market wasn't ready for that then and even now, since Disney (nor anyone else) has tried that on a blockbuster movie ever since.

IMO, a lot of people seem to have the premise that people will just stop purchasing content altogether if it isn't available on DVD. I think this is a somewhat flawed view and what people would do instead is just transfer their purchases to the other available substitute format(s). By transferring their purchases the revenue is just transferred to the other format(s) which, in the end, keeps shareholders happy. And if the revenue received per unit sold is higher on these other formats then overall revenue may increase. Also as more people purchase a given format economies of scale have more of an effect. I just don't see it having a detrimental effect.

Using televisions as an example, it's not like consumers refused to purchase new HD televisions because the manufacturers no longer made SD televisions. And before we know it the manufacturers will eventually phase out HD sets for UHD ones.

I just find it odd that some studios, in this day and age, only offer SD content when the content was created in native HD. Especially TV series created in the past x years.

[PenguinMaster]

Originally Posted by rdodolak

IMO, a lot of people seem to have the premise that people will just stop purchasing content altogether if it isn't available on DVD. I think this is a somewhat flawed view and what people would do instead is just transfer their purchases to the other available substitute format(s). By transferring their purchases the revenue is just transferred to the other format(s) which, in the end, keeps shareholders happy. And if the revenue received per unit sold is higher on these other formats then overall revenue may increase. Also as more people purchase a given format economies of scale have more of an effect. I just don't see it having a detrimental effect.

Using televisions as an example, it's not like consumers refused to purchase new HD televisions because the manufacturers no longer made SD televisions. And before we know it the manufacturers will eventually phase out HD sets for UHD ones.

I just find it odd that some studios, in this day and age, only offer SD content when the content was created in native HD. Especially TV series created in the past x years.

Most people switched to buying HD televisions when they dropped to the same price that SD televisions were previously sold at. The same thing would have to happen to get most people to buy Blu-ray instead of DVD. At which point the studios would be selling a product that is more expensive to manufacture at the same price that they were previously selling a less expensive product, it doesn't work out for them. Plus they'd lose the extra income from the people who were willing to spend more for Blu-ray since all the Blu-ray titles would drop in price.

Currently most titles on Blu-ray cost about $5 more at launch than their DVD counterparts. A Blu-ray costs $2-$3 more to manufacture than a DVD (which costs less than 50 cents to manufacture). Therefore the increased profit from a Blu-ray is only about $2 or $3. If studios dropped DVDs it's likely they would have to drop the prices of Blu-ray by at least $2 to increase sales in which case they would make less money overall.

With TV series it is even more understandable that they are switching to DVD only since the extra cost is per disc. Therefore a 4 disc Blu-ray set would have to sell for at least $10 more than the DVD version just to make up the difference in manufacturing cost.

I'd love it everything came out on Blu-ray, but the studios have very little incentive to promote Blu-ray over DVD.

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by PenguinMaster

Currently most titles on Blu-ray cost about $5 more at launch than their DVD counterparts. A Blu-ray costs $2-$3 more to manufacture than a DVD (which costs less than 50 cents to manufacture). Therefore the increased profit from a Blu-ray is only about $2 or $3. If studios dropped DVDs it's likely they would have to drop the prices of Blu-ray by at least $2 to increase sales in which case they would make less money overall.

Are there any hard numbers showing BDs are that much more expensive to manufacture in the quantities typically purchased by the studios? Also, lets not forget the prices do decrease with increased production.

Originally Posted by PenguinMaster

I'd love it everything came out on Blu-ray, but the studios have very little incentive to promote Blu-ray over DVD.

They might have an incentive as the studios and manufacturers are investing quite a bit in UHD technology. I just don't see it being successful it there are three competing physical formats in the same form factor. If they don't want it to flop then they're going to have to do something. This could be the opportune time to replace DVD with BD and BD with UHD BD. Just food for thought.

[PenguinMaster]

Originally Posted by rdodolak

Are there any hard numbers showing BDs are that much more expensive to manufacture in the quantities typically purchased by the studios? Also, lets not forget the prices do decrease with increased production.



They might have an incentive as the studios and manufacturers are investing quite a bit in UHD technology. I just don't see it being successful it there are three competing physical formats in the same form factor. If they don't want it to flop then they're going to have to do something. This could be the opportune time to replace DVD with BD and BD with UHD BD. Just food for thought.

While I don't have the exact numbers the studios pay for DVDs or Blu-ray discs, the price available to most consumers is about 50 cents each for 5000 pressed dual-layer DVDs and about $3 each for 5000 pressed dual-layer Blu-ray discs. This is the price that discmakers.com offers. The price the studios are paying is likely a bit lower for both.

If the studios replaced DVD with BD and BD with UHD BD then the prices would likely drop of each format to the ones they are replacing. I think the point of promoting UHD BD is to try and replicate the prices that Blu-ray had when it was first introduced. At that time DVDs were readily available for less than $20 but Blu-ray discs sold for $30 to $40. Now that Blu-ray discs have dropped to a low price the studios want to introduce a new premium format that they can sell for a high price.

Making both Blu-ray and UHD Blu-ray standard would just cause both to drop in price and the studios don't want that. It would be financially viable to keep DVD and Blu-ray as they are now and make UHD Blu-ray a high priced niche product.

[bailey1987]

Originally Posted by PenguinMaster

While I don't have the exact numbers the studios pay for DVDs or Blu-ray discs, the price available to most consumers is about 50 cents each for 5000 pressed dual-layer DVDs and about $3 each for 5000 pressed dual-layer Blu-ray discs. This is the price that discmakers.com offers. The price the studios are paying is likely a bit lower for both.

If the studios replaced DVD with BD and BD with UHD BD then the prices would likely drop of each format to the ones they are replacing. I think the point of promoting UHD BD is to try and replicate the prices that Blu-ray had when it was first introduced. At that time DVDs were readily available for less than $20 but Blu-ray discs sold for $30 to $40. Now that Blu-ray discs have dropped to a low price the studios want to introduce a new premium format that they can sell for a high price.

Making both Blu-ray and UHD Blu-ray standard would just cause both to drop in price and the studios don't want that. It would be financially viable to keep DVD and Blu-ray as they are now and make UHD Blu-ray a high priced niche product.

Ultra HD Blu-ray's use the same technology as standard Blu-ray's, there is little to no reason for them to be charging any higher than the price of a new DVD.

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by bailey1987

Ultra HD Blu-ray's use the same technology as standard Blu-ray's, there is little to no reason for them to be charging any higher than the price of a new DVD.

Similar technology but not the same. It's true, UHD is built upon the BD foundation but there is a lot of new technology and standards being implemented for UHD BD. The proposed 66GB and 100GB discs will also require modifications to existing or completely new replication lines.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by bailey1987

Ultra HD Blu-ray's use the same technology as standard Blu-ray's, there is little to no reason for them to be charging any higher than the price of a new DVD.

Greed is the reason. Sony digital downloads on their proprietary UHD service (that have no packaged medium) are even less capable than the known specs for UHD Blu-ray (with lossy audio too) and they often want $30 or more per title, even catalog items. And they have total control over those files.

[PenguinMaster]

Originally Posted by bailey1987

Ultra HD Blu-ray's use the same technology as standard Blu-ray's, there is little to no reason for them to be charging any higher than the price of a new DVD.

Dual-layer Blu-ray discs currently cost about three times the price of single-layer Blu-ray discs so it's likely that the UHD discs (which are triple-layer discs with 33GB on each layer) will likely cost at least twice as much as dual-layer discs. But what's far more important is whether the studios can successfully market UHD discs as a premium product. Then they'll be able to charge a much higher price regardless of the manufacturing costs (which most people never pay any attention to anyway).

[AintNoSin]

Originally Posted by bailey1987

Ultra HD Blu-ray's use the same technology as standard Blu-ray's, there is little to no reason for them to be charging any higher than the price of a new DVD.

UHD BD use 66GB to 100GB discs, which are a new technology to a point. At first, the blanks will be more expensive, the mastering process will probably have a higher failure rate and require more care and therefore time. All of these will add a certain amount to the cost of producing each copy in the early days of the format.

UHD BD's will probably be more expensive, but mostly because the media companies want us to think of them as a premium product.

[bailey1987]

I'm not wanting to cause arguments but I think a few of you are being to kind to the makers of Blu-ray, BD XL has been here since 2010, I stand by my point that the discs are no different from current ones, I wouldn't be surprised if replicators have kicked up a fuss about the 66Gb discs, because lets face it the 66Gb disc only exists to require new replication lines. What's 16Gb going to do?

[Kirsty_Mc]

Originally Posted by bailey1987

Ultra HD Blu-ray's use the same technology as standard Blu-ray's, there is little to no reason for them to be charging any higher than the price of a new DVD.

If you are getting more for your money (like 4x No. of pixels), then you should expect to pay more. Not 4x as much as this would make it too expensive for the market to bear, but maybe 1.5 to 2X the price.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Kirsty_Mc

If you are getting more for your money (like 4x No. of pixels), then you should expect to pay more. Not 4x as much as this would make it too expensive for the market to bear, but maybe 1.5 to 2X the price.

The market has shown that it won't even bear Blu-ray prices. If UHD Blu-ray is 1.5 times more expensive then it will never get off the ground.

Part of the confusion has been the fact DVD was kept around and in direct pricing competition to Blu-ray when everything was switching to HD.

[Kirsty_Mc]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

Greed is the reason. Sony digital downloads on their proprietary UHD service (that have no package media) are even less capable than the known specs for UHD Blu-ray (with lossy audio too) and they often want $30 or more per title, even catalog items. And they have total control over those files.

Yes... Streaming is the future

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by bailey1987

I'm not wanting to cause arguments but I think a few of you are being to kind to the makers of Blu-ray, BD XL has been here since 2010, I stand by my point that the discs are no different from current ones, I wouldn't be surprised if replicators have kicked up a fuss about the 66Gb discs, because lets face it the 66Gb disc only exists to require new replication lines. What's 16Gb going to do?

As far as I'm aware, BDXL is a recordable format and is completely different from replicated media (BDROM). Standard BD (BDROM) doesn't have a triple layer or 33GB layers which will require a change to existing replication lines and thus cost additional money. The BDA has also talked about both 100GB/TL (33GB/L) and 66GB/TL (22GB/L) discs.

[Kirsty_Mc]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

The market has shown that it won't even bear Blu-ray prices. If UHD Blu-ray is 1.5 times more expensive then it will never get off the ground.

Part of the confusion has been the fact DVD was kept around and in direct pricing competition to Blu-ray when everything was switching to HD.

Yes, but I don't think we're going to get a superior product (if DRM free) for the same price as 1080P Blu-Ray. There has to be something in it for them, otherwise why the additional investment in mastering etc. I remember back in the days of Laserdisc (and before that Laservision). These discs back then were about £20 to £30 a pop. take into account inflation and we are talking expensive.

I am with some of our UHD detractors in this one opinion. UHD Blu-Ray will not be a mass market product. It will instead cater to us aficionados and in order to justify the costs associated with a small market there will be a premium for us to pay. I accept that, I think it's a reasonable expectation as long as they don't take the p1$$.

What didn't help with the take-up of Blu-Ray was the format war. HD-DVD took a toll during the critical roll out phase of the format. Confusion also played a part as I can't tell you how many times I have heard people refer to Blu-ray as Blu-Ray DVD. Then of course there was the world economic situation which hit in 2008. This can't be ignored when comparing the launch of DVD (in a boom time) to the launch of Blu-Ray in the midst of the worst depression since the 1930's.

[bailey1987]

Originally Posted by Kirsty_Mc

What didn't help with the take-up of Blu-Ray was the format war. HD-DVD took a toll during the critical roll out phase of the format. Confusion also played a part as I can't tell you how many times I have heard people refer to Blu-ray as Blu-Ray DVD. Then of course there was the world economic situation which hit in 2008. This can't be ignored when comparing the launch of DVD (in a boom time) to the launch of Blu-Ray in the midst of the worst depression since the 1930's.

I agree, as for the recession, my god I can't see prices ever dropping to pre recession levels, a simple thing as a puff pastry pasty from Greggs is just extortionate never mind anything else, PS4/XBOXONE games at £59.99 a pop, PASS!

[reanimator]

So am I following this right? UHD-BD should be a 1:1 copy of the studio master, should have no copy protection at all, and should only cost $9.99? Seriously?

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Kirsty_Mc

Yes, but I don't think we're going to get a superior product (if DRM free) for the same price as 1080P Blu-Ray. There has to be something in it for them, otherwise why the additional investment in mastering etc. I remember back in the days of Laserdisc (and before that Laservision). These discs back then were about £20 to £30 a pop. take into account inflation and we are talking expensive.

I am with some of our UHD detractors in this one opinion. UHD Blu-Ray will not be a mass market product. It will instead cater to us aficionados and in order to justify the costs associated with a small market there will be a premium for us to pay. I accept that, I think it's a reasonable expectation as long as they don't take the p1$$.

What didn't help with the take-up of Blu-Ray was the format war. HD-DVD took a toll during the critical roll out phase of the format. Confusion also played a part as I can't tell you how many times I have heard people refer to Blu-ray as Blu-Ray DVD. Then of course there was the world economic situation which hit in 2008. This can't be ignored when comparing the launch of DVD (in a boom time) to the launch of Blu-Ray in the midst of the worst depression since the 1930's.

Then every single UHD Blu-ray (sans online authentication - I will not stand for it) had better be Super Bit in nature with fantastic extras and Dolby Atmos or DTS:X immersive audio as a given whenever possible.

It can't be like Blu-ray where every other catalog title is a stinker in terms of video quality due to indifference.

Otherwise, there will be little to no incentive for me or many others to pay a premium. These must be extra special.

Just remember, 3D Video Blu-ray's were premium priced though it didn't really take a lot to master a title and this pricing structure helped kill off that feature.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by rdodolak

As far as I'm aware, BDXL is a recordable format and is completely different from replicated media (BDROM). Standard BD (BDROM) doesn't have a triple layer or 33GB layers which will require a change to existing replication lines and thus cost additional money. The BDA has also talked about both 100GB/TL (33GB/L) and 66GB/TL (22GB/L) discs.

The 66GB discs are supposed to be two 33GB layers, are they not?

In any case, the 33GB layers were proposed by Sony and Panasonic as an addition to the current Blu-ray spec back in 2010 which would (apparently) only have required a firmware update to make the players compatible, and would not have required extensive retooling of BD production lines because only the raw media itself (which is manufactured off-site) was changing, from 25GB layers to 33GB, and it was using the same double-layer pressing.

Fast forward five years, and with the addition of a third layer for the 100GB UHD discs, that makes things a little more complicated admittedly. It may prove to be the case that most early UHD releases are 66GB while we wait for the 100GB manufacturing capacity to get going (if the format lasts that long ) but that'll be absolutely fine for the average 2-hour feature. If Sony make Lawrence of Arabia a UHD BD launch title then I wouldn't be surprised to see the film split across two discs, maybe a 66GB and a 50GB, with the extras disc from the regular Blu-ray in there too.