4K Blu-ray Confirmed, Coming in

[raygendreau]

A law student tackles the movie piracy problem in a paper from 2008, and offers a solution. Perhaps the film industry is in the process of adopting it,

You can find the document with a Google search:

[DOC]piracy and the movie industry: change your business model

http://www.mcandrews-ip.com/our-team/ryan-jungels.html

[bailey1987]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I guess we should give credit where credit is due with an acknowledged tip of the hat.

In this modern day case, to help with mitigating a potential HDR format war, anyone know which particular board members (Fox, Disney, Warner, Sony, Dolby, DTS, Hitachi, Intel, LG, Mitsubishi, Oracle, Panasonic, Philips, Pioneer, Samsung, Sharp, Technicolor) actually proposed the open standard SMPTE EOTF (https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ar#post9754213) to the BDA for the HDR parameter of Ultra HD Blu-ray?

Two of them lead the charge.

Disney, Sony?

[2themax]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Nobody else willing to give it a shot and acknowledge the proponents of an Open Standard (which is a good thing)? MPEG provided the content to be tested.

Would it be cheating if I answered?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by bailey1987

Disney, Sony?

Half correct.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by 2themax

Would it be cheating if I answered?

Definitely, too easy for you.

But, at a higher degree of difficulty, you could reveal to readers, or hint in a Penton-ian type way, what exact brand/monitors were used to analyze the presented clips for the different HDR solutions.

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Half correct.

The correct part has to be Sony as Disney is way to proprietary to consider open standards. I would have to guess the other one is Dolby.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by rdodolak

The correct part has to be Sony

Correct

Originally Posted by rdodolak

I would have to guess the other one is Dolby.

Although Pat Griffis (of Dolby) was actually the chair of SMPTE ST 2084 project, sorry, no, Dolby was not the other BDA board member that proposed the Open Standard HDR system (SMPTE EOTF).

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Although Pat Griffis (of Dolby) was actually the chair of SMPTE ST 2084 project, sorry, no, Dolby was not the other BDA board member that proposed the Open Standard HDR system (SMPTE EOTF).

My other guess would have been Philips. After that I'm out of guesses.

[m3racer123]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Half correct.

My guess is Warner Bros.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by rdodolak

My other guess would have been Philips. After that I'm out of guesses.

Well rdo , at least you’re getting closer alphabetically , but no, in fact Philips has their own proprietary EOTF for HDR coding that they’re pushing.

Heck, everyone seems to be have their own HDR tech that they're promoting one way or another…
http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2015/...dynamic-range/

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by m3racer123

My guess is Warner Bros.

Sorry racer dude, thee Bros is a no. What’s m3 stand for anyway?

[m3racer123]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

What’s m3 stand for anyway?

BMW M3, my favoutire car.

[m3racer123]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

at least you’re getting closer alphabetically

It has to be Panasonic then. If I'm wrong again...

[Anthony P]

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.

That is complete BS. Now talking about studios as a group does not
make sense (they each make their own decisions) and some might have done more than others and I am not saying (or implying) that they should have tried harder (just disagreeing with your premis) or
that I know the effect and it would be drastic (i.e. how much of a difference it would have done), but there are countless examples from a format war that existed and was definitely elongated more then it needed to be (how many have said that they waited for the dust to clear or HD-DVD fanboys that vowed never to buy a BD), people complaining on here how the new show they want to purchase is not available on BD and they are forced to buy it on DVD (or digital), even ,from a numbers perspective, Disney not releasing Frozen 3D on BD in the US (which tends to be the numbers we see)- if the guy that wanted the 3D BD bought it from the UK (where it is available- it won't show up in the US BD numbers we compare to US DVD numbers), if he bought the Vudu copy (maybe he did not know it was available elsewhere on BD or he thinks there can be issues) that becomes someone forced to buy a different format and will be reflected oin the BD vs DVD sales numbers, if the guy skipped the title that is a loss in the BD numbers and even in the best case scenario for BD numbers where the guy just bought the 2D US BD version it would still have an impact on revenue because the 3D combo would have been more expensive.

So yeah it is complete fantasy that all the studios did everything they could to push people to switch to BD.

[Geoff D]

I do find it funny that Sony were behind the open standard HDR proposal, because the company has become infamous for its myopic insistence on pushing various proprietary formats over the years.

If the other one is indeed Panasonic, it's another interesting little footnote because they're both ailing Japanese tech giants who are being left behind by their Korean counterparts. Trying to level the HDR playing field, perhaps?

[Anthony P]

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.

your analysis is very faulty.

1) DVD does not need copy protection while BD does, I am guessing the prices for DVD do not include CSS while studio releases would use it.

2) the difference might be around 2.50 @ 5000 copies and I get why you went with that number (for others it is the max you can enter for an on-line quote) and you are right that both will decrease with larger numbers but they don't de3crease equally in monetary value, since I don't know what you entered for the 5000 , when I left it at 1000 it came up with 70 cents the DVD and 4.50 for BD which is a difference of 3.80 and much bigger then 2.50, now imagine what the difference would be for studios where it is not even based on the number of copies of the individual title.

3) judging between a large replicator ( the kind that work with real studios)and a small one can be difficult, for example machine cost is amortized in the price of replication (i.e. I need you to pay more for the fancy new machine I bought) so on a small replicator that amortization can be higher and longer (because it is used less to make the fancy product), also, not saying t is the case here, but I remember years ago on one of the small replicators sites where they had in the fine print that BD50s were actually outsourced to a bigger replicator that actually had the lines.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

That is complete BS. Now talking about studios as a group does not
make sense (they each make their own decisions) and some might have done more than others and I am not saying (or implying) that they should have tried harder (just disagreeing with your premis) or
that I know the effect and it would be drastic (i.e. how much of a difference it would have done), but there are countless examples from a format war that existed and was definitely elongated more then it needed to be (how many have said that they waited for the dust to clear or HD-DVD fanboys that vowed never to buy a BD), people complaining on here how the new show they want to purchase is not available on BD and they are forced to buy it on DVD (or digital), even ,from a numbers perspective, Disney not releasing Frozen 3D on BD in the US (which tends to be the numbers we see)- if the guy that wanted the 3D BD bought it from the UK (where it is available- it won't show up in the US BD numbers we compare to US DVD numbers), if he bought the Vudu copy (maybe he did not know it was available elsewhere on BD or he thinks there can be issues) that becomes someone forced to buy a different format and will be reflected oin the BD vs DVD sales numbers, if the guy skipped the title that is a loss in the BD numbers and even in the best case scenario for BD numbers where the guy just bought the 2D US BD version it would still have an impact on revenue because the 3D combo would have been more expensive.

So yeah it is complete fantasy that all the studios did everything they could to push people to switch to BD.

Sorry Anthony, I really don't understand half of what you're trying to say in that long run-on sentence. Something about the format war being to blame and Disney not releasing Frozen 3D in the U.S.

Format wars are irrelevant. They are the norm when new formats come along. After the format war was decided, the studios did what they could to get consumers to switch. All within reason of course. You can't pull the plug on a legacy format that still pulls in 70 percent of the sales revenue. But they could include it with the Blu-ray SKU and they did (and still do). The studios are businesses with stockholders to please.

Regarding the 3D pullout by Disney, this was long after the studios made their Blu-ray push. They realized several years ago that DVD is going to be around to stay and that Blu-ray may never be the format of choice (majority format). Besides, home video 3D is generally seen to be a failure so I don't see why you're using that as evidence that my theory is BS.

If you think they should have done more, then what should they have done?

[PenguinMaster]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

your analysis is very faulty.

1) DVD does not need copy protection while BD does, I am guessing the prices for DVD do not include CSS while studio releases would use it.

2) the difference might be around 2.50 @ 5000 copies and I get why you went with that number (for others it is the max you can enter for an on-line quote) and you are right that both will decrease with larger numbers but they don't de3crease equally in monetary value, since I don't know what you entered for the 5000 , when I left it at 1000 it came up with 70 cents the DVD and 4.50 for BD which is a difference of 3.80 and much bigger then 2.50, now imagine what the difference would be for studios where it is not even based on the number of copies of the individual title.

3) judging between a large replicator ( the kind that work with real studios)and a small one can be difficult, for example machine cost is amortized in the price of replication (i.e. I need you to pay more for the fancy new machine I bought) so on a small replicator that amortization can be higher and longer (because it is used less to make the fancy product), also, not saying t is the case here, but I remember years ago on one of the small replicators sites where they had in the fine print that BD50s were actually outsourced to a bigger replicator that actually had the lines.

First of all I'd like to clarify that discmakers does offer CSS protection and I checked that option (it costs about 2 cents per disc for 5000 discs).

I'm not sure what you're really arguing with the rest of your statement. My main point was that Blu-ray will always be more expensive to manufacture than DVD so the studios have no incentive to stop making DVDs if that means they'll have to drop the price of Blu-ray.

Even if Blu-ray was the same price as DVD to manufacture, the studios would still make more money by retaining both formats. If a title sells 20% on Blu-ray and 80% on DVD then 20% of the sales are at a higher price. If there was no DVD then Blu-ray would have to drop in price and 100% of the sales of every title would be at the lower price point.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by m3racer123

It has to be Panasonic then....

That’s a Bingo!

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Trying to level the HDR playing field, perhaps?

Wisdom gained from a past format war (Blu-ray vs. HD DVD), perhaps?