Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[JoeDeM]

Originally Posted by jrauseo

But if you still offer the DVD for those who refuse to upgrade, then people are not ready/want UHD. You either have to make the change as a whole and slowly eliminate DVD, or the format loses. I do not think there were any VHS tapes still being pushed when Blu-ray was announced, because that is counter productive to the new format.

But, people will still want DVDs because there is not a real reason for most people to even go from DVD to Blu-ray. The average consumer could give a shit less about the resolution and HDR and things like that. They care about cost, and when a new DVD is $15, a Blu-ray is $20, and UHD is $30, good luck getting America's middle class to shell out $30 for a movie.

we know they are not ready, and never will be because they don't care about quality only price, even when the price is only $2 between the DVD and the blu-ray they opt for the DVD. UHD prices will fall just like every other format before it, but it needs that $20 spot to drop into, but the Blu-ray combo is taking up that spot.

Originally Posted by bruceames.

I'm surprised they're still doing combos with DVDs. Most people prefer the UV/DC than the DVD, as part of the reason was to accommodate different players in the house (the other was to sell DVD buyers on BD, but that ship has sailed). Now it's far easier to just stream it. My 5 year old granddaughter has an easy time going through the kids movies in my VUDU collection. With DVDs it would be a pain.

I agree, and that's why I think they should drop the DVD/Blu-ray combo

[Rocklandsboy]

The reasons that people upgraded from VHS to DVD were predominently unique, physical factors such as:

1. Instant access to content without having to fastforward and rewind.

2. Repeat watching without a drop in quality.

3. More content taking up less space (entire TV series in a case the width of one VHS tape)

4. Bonus features. Added value.

5. General acceptance of 5" physical media because CD was a recognised standard.

A distant sixth would be improved PQ/AQ. Maybe it's different in the US but here in the UK the majority just don't care. Before DVD, Laserdisc was a non-event (see point 4). To think that people would embrace BD in droves was a stretch. To expect the same of 4K BD is an even bigger stretch. You can drool over HDR all you like, it simply ain't gonna happen!

[dvdmike]

I only fully went to DVD from LD due to the fact they stopped making them

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by Rocklandsboy

The reasons that people upgraded from VHS to DVD were predominently unique, physical factors such as:

1. Instant access to content without having to fastforward and rewind.

2. Repeat watching without a drop in quality.

3. More content taking up less space (entire TV series in a case the width of one VHS tape)

4. General acceptance of 5" physical media because CD was a recognised standard.

A distant fifth would be improved PQ/AQ. Maybe it's different in the US but here in the UK the majority just don't care. Before DVD, Laserdisc was a non-event (see point 4). To think that people would embrace BD in droves was a stretch. To expect the same of 4K BD is an even bigger stretch. You can drool over HDR all you like, it simply ain't gonna happen!

Ok, people don't care about PQ. I just have to disagree with that entirely and leave it at that. You have your perspective (one who hasn't tried it) and I have mine (one who has). Probably the reality will lie somewhere between our two extremes, who knows. Doesn't really matter what we think anyway, let's see what happens down the road.

[Opips3]

I like Bluray is very good quality and proof scratched.

DVD sucks. Vinyl record sucks. Cd sucks. They are poor quality scratched!
People give up phyical media and stick download it.

Vhs tapes is good....

[Mighty Max]

Originally Posted by Opips3

I like Bluray is very good quality and proof scratched.

DVD sucks. Vinyl record sucks. Cd sucks. They are poor quality scratched!
People give up phyical media and stick download it.

Vhs tapes is good....

Is this guy trolling?
Vinyl, REAL Vinyl, has much better quality than a cd! The vinyl being created and sold nowadays is nothing more than cd quality slapped onto a record.

Vhs was decent for its time, but the quality was always bad. And players had a habit of eating or snapping the tape.

Downloadsnare terrible as one does not actually own what they download.

[moviegeek1992]

I never understood why studios never did away with DVDs? There were plenty of titles that were either triple packs (blu-ray/dvd/digital copy) or double packs (blu-ray/dvd) but then you had the seperate DVD editions also. Surely if they had stopped DVDs people would have been forced to buy the blu-ray/DVD editions and prices could have been adjusted a bit more cheaper, seeing as everyone would now be buying the same product. Then casual movie watchers/buyers would have a blu-ray disc if they ever got a blu-ray player or HD tv in the future.

Eventually they could have phased out DVDs all together, the fact they didn't do this undermined blu-ray and no doubt it's going to undermine UHD also. Looks like they're now offering UHD+blu-ray+digitalHD, probably means that finally now they'll get rid of DVD, if they don't then UHD will fail.

[Opips3]

Originally Posted by Mighty Max

Is this guy trolling?
Vinyl, REAL Vinyl, has much better quality than a cd! The vinyl being created and sold nowadays is nothing more than cd quality slapped onto a record.

Vhs was decent for its time, but the quality was always bad. And players had a habit of eating or snapping the tape.

Downloadsnare terrible as one does not actually own what they download.

I'm not trolling. I'm a cat.

Yes, you're right. If one scratched on vinyl record. Bad sound!!

[applemac]

Originally Posted by Mighty Max

Is this guy trolling?
Vinyl, REAL Vinyl, has much better quality than a cd! The vinyl being created and sold nowadays is nothing more than cd quality slapped onto a record.

Vhs was decent for its time, but the quality was always bad. And players had a habit of eating or snapping the tape.

Downloadsnare terrible as one does not actually own what they download.

LOL Vinyl Signal-to-noise ratio is horrendous compared to CD.
You may be able to get a better sound from a first round original analog pressing with a $1000+ turntable, the most perfect needle ever made, with a mint (and perfectly burned in) analog pre-amp, analog amp, and McIntosh or equivalent speakers. Without any of that equation vinyl will have worse overall quality than a CD on a much less expensive system.


Ive known some who have just upgraded to HD and bluray and are pretty impressed with the quality over SD TV and DVD. They just need to stop making DVD and DVD Players already; move everything to BD combo players and BD releases. Adoption will jump overnight.

[JoeDeM]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

Ok, people don't care about PQ. I just have to disagree with that entirely and leave it at that. You have your perspective (one who hasn't tried it) and I have mine (one who has). Probably the reality will lie somewhere between our two extremes, who knows. Doesn't really matter what we think anyway, let's see what happens down the road.

They care about quality, they just don't want to pay for it.

[PenguinMaster]

Originally Posted by JoeDeM

They care about quality, they just don't want to pay for it.

When most people aren't willing to pay a $2 difference to get a Blu-ray instead of a DVD it's fair to say they don't care about quality. Plus plenty of titles have sold better on DVD when the Blu-ray was the same price. Either they don't care about quality or they are totally oblivious of how close in price the two formats are.

Originally Posted by moviegeek1992

I never understood why studios never did away with DVDs? There were plenty of titles that were either triple packs (blu-ray/dvd/digital copy) or double packs (blu-ray/dvd) but then you had the seperate DVD editions also. Surely if they had stopped DVDs people would have been forced to buy the blu-ray/DVD editions and prices could have been adjusted a bit more cheaper, seeing as everyone would now be buying the same product. Then casual movie watchers/buyers would have a blu-ray disc if they ever got a blu-ray player or HD tv in the future.

Eventually they could have phased out DVDs all together, the fact they didn't do this undermined blu-ray and no doubt it's going to undermine UHD also. Looks like they're now offering UHD+blu-ray+digitalHD, probably means that finally now they'll get rid of DVD, if they don't then UHD will fail.

The studios are trying to make more money, not make Blu-ray succeed. How would they make more money by releasing a Blu-ray/DVD combo for cheaper?

[Rocklandsboy]

Originally Posted by JoeDeM

They care about quality, they just don't want to pay for it.

That's exactly the point. People upgrade until they're satisfied with what they have. For some that was DVD. For others (including myself) it is BD. It doesn't matter what the "next big thing" looks like because it exceeds our perceptions of "acceptable".

None of the previous formats were acceptable to me. BD is. And I suspect it is to a lot of people.

What WOULD win people over are exclusive extras and gimmicky packaging. That's what sells. People go to any lengths for store exclusives, steelbooks, etc. Yet UHD BD is doing the opposite of that. No extras at all - yet - and bland packaging.

Just saying.

[PenguinMaster]

Originally Posted by Rocklandsboy

That's exactly the point. People upgrade until they're satisfied with what they have. For some that was DVD. For others (including myself) it is BD. It doesn't matter what the "next big thing" looks like because it exceeds our perceptions of "acceptable".

None of the previous formats were acceptable to me. BD is. And I suspect it is to a lot of people.

What WOULD win people over are exclusive extras and gimmicky packaging. That's what sells. People go to any lengths for store exclusives, steelbooks, etc. Yet UHD BD is doing the opposite of that. No extras at all - yet - and bland packaging.

Just saying.

Currently with new releases Blu-ray is just a little bit more expensive than DVD. If the same pattern happens with UHD Blu-ray in a few years would you be interested in UHD Blu-ray?

I understand not wanting to upgrade now. But in a few years when players and TVs are much cheaper and UHD new releases are just a little bit more expensive than the same titles on Blu-ray I expect a lot of people to upgrade, just as they did with Blu-ray.

[Rocklandsboy]

Originally Posted by PenguinMaster

Currently with new releases Blu-ray is just a little bit more expensive than DVD. If the same pattern happens with UHD Blu-ray in a few years would you be interested in UHD Blu-ray?

I understand not wanting to upgrade now. But in a few years when players and TVs are much cheaper and UHD new releases are just a little bit more expensive than the same titles on Blu-ray I expect a lot of people to upgrade, just as they did with Blu-ray.

Not really.

While I'm currently in the market for a new BD player and might pick up the new Panasonic 4K deck, I'm not thrilled with any of the current TV technologies. I'm keeping my Panasonic plasma until it literally stops working.

Plus my biggest concern with UHD BD isn't the cost (though the cost of an even remotely acceptable OLED is blinding) it's the HDR. I object to the concept of altering the picture from the DOP's intend. Full stop.

[Canada]

Originally Posted by 4K fanatic

While 4K shows on netflix look great and if this was reflectionof how 4K movies would look in general, id expect success. The biggest hurdle is thst peoppe don't have 65'' uhd tvs in their house. I'd say averwge is 50-55''. This in combination with movies shot in 2.39:1 or 2.75:1, where the black bar rats up alot of the screen looos like a path to faliure. Imo only movies shot in a full frame aspect ratio will be successful. 4K is all about resolution and when you have 1/3 of screen eaten up by black-faliure is likely-if direct tvs 4K espn is success, it will help but youre not toing to convince people to upgrade when 1/3 of tv is black. Theyd have to sit 4' away from screen. ��

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oy_jIYbpaMY

right of the top he has a very interesting thing about resolution, screen size and seating distance.

Give me OAR or give me death!

[PenguinMaster]

Originally Posted by Rocklandsboy

Plus my biggest concern with UHD BD isn't the cost it's the HDR. I object to the concept. Full stop.

I understand that for catalog releases but it would be my guess that many new releases will be made with HDR in mind. Even if most theaters and customers don't have HDR ready set-ups many filmmakers will want to use new technologies. Not wanting existing releases to be modified makes sense, but being against using new technologies in new releases is absurd.

[Rocklandsboy]

Originally Posted by PenguinMaster

I understand that for catalog releases but it would be my guess that many new releases will be made with HDR in mind. Even if most theaters and customers don't have HDR ready set-ups many filmmakers will want to use new technologies. Not wanting existing releases to be modified makes sense, but being against using new technologies in new releases is absurd.

But will they? Directors were encouraged to use 3-D. They didn't. They were encouraged to use HFR. They didn't. Hell Spielberg still doesn't like digital!

I just don't see the home video industry dictating to movie directors how to shoot.

Plus investing in new movies going forward is even less cost-effective than investing in a format (like DVD and BD) which had the potential to make *every* movie look better.

Simply doesn't make sense!

[PenguinMaster]

Originally Posted by Rocklandsboy

But will they? Directors were encouraged to use 3-D. They didn't. They were encouraged to use HFR. They didn't. Hell Spielberg still doesn't like digital!

I just don't see the home video industry dictating to movie directors how to shoot.

Plus investing in new movies going forward is even less cost-effective than investing in a format (like DVD and BD) which had the potential to make *every* movie look better.

Simply doesn't make sense!

I wasn't saying the home video industry would dictate anything. I'm sure many directors won't use HDR and many directors will. Whether or not HDR is popular at home probably won't be a factor in either case. Many directors will make the movie they want to make regardless of whether or not the majority of viewers will see it as they intend.

For directors (like Spielberg) that have been directing for decades they aren't likely to change their ways now, but new people are constantly entering the industry and they are likely to embrace new technology.

[peterraes]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

But what version of HDR do you want two copies of the upscaled Mad Max as you want the newly re-released Dolby vision version because you have a Dolby vision set and want to justify its purchace?
The format is a mess of standards and half steps.

4K + WCG + 10BIT,annything else is a boost (HDR or Dolby Vision),just gimmickery that changes the movie as it was supposed to be seen.
Just take a look at Samsung tellies UHD and the SUHD versions ,and tell me you find the SUHD picture "normal"?
The picture is just boosted in brightness and contrast and totally ruining the viewing experience ,same with HDR...same "trick".
Why oh why does the industry thinks we need these gimmicks?
Dont they realize that purists are not gonna go for it?
I watch my movies on a 104" gain 1.0 screen fully ISF calibrated every 300 hours ,why would i want these boosted pictures?
What's the point if my projektor gets calibrated so that it in the end it gives me a unnatural viewing experience?
Oh dear ,i get carried away again...

[RealorFake4K]

HDR is not a gimmick if implemented properly. It is not like "Potoshop HDR" which is just cartoonifying the picture. The rec.2020/HDR/10/12bit color space is closer to what your eyes see naturally.