Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Bk_Tan

It's a stupid question that keeps being repeated.

It does not need to and will never match DVD.

The explosion came from efficiency mainly and then of course was backed up by catalogue.

Now, all of the movies that you either could not get or had to rewind to rewatch have been released countless times.

Only new movies and classics and cult favourites will continue to sell and never at the same rate as before when you include all the other forms, legal and illegal of watching movies that did not exist back then.

If you can't grasp that and are still looking for reasons to stick a finger to DVD, I do feel sorry for you. It's pointless and it's over.

So true.

And what I find most amusing is the fact that the original poster or creator of this thread hasn’t been online to read any of these ‘responses’ since Nov. 9th.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by fathergll

Let me put it this way. Footprint/convenience will beat quality by a long shot for the masses almost every time and people are willing to give up a ton of quality for a smaller footprint. It tells me a lot that tons people use those terrible little iPod integrated stereos(you guys seen them, its the little stereos that you can dock your iPod in with awful sound). Add in awful streaming of movies and people watching them on portable devices like iPads also says a lot. I agree the future will be downloading

You are assuming that the iPod has replaced high quality music sources. That is far from the case, what the iPod has down is replaced the cassette tape and Walkman. Those who value high quality music will buy-the higher quality versions. The iPod allows you to access your music better and changes the way masses access or get their music. Sure portability and footprint might work in the iPod/ very personal music consumption but pricing still plays a much bigger factor than footprint alone.

If footprint is so important, why do I prefer to purchase a DVD vs an iTunes sd download when I want ownership of a movie?

[fathergll]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

You are assuming that the iPod has replaced high quality music sources. That is far from the case, what the iPod has down is replaced the cassette tape and Walkman.

CDs replaced cassettes and MP3s(iPods) replaces CDs. CDs are higher quality than the average 128 kb mp3 file that people were listening to back in 2000.

If footprint is so important, why do I prefer to purchase a DVD vs an iTunes sd download when I want ownership of a movie?

Because you post on a niche forum that is dedicate to blu rays. We are talking about the general public.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by fathergll

I'm not following, you're suggesting DVD would have failed if it were not for its pricing model?

What era did you grow up in? In other words, how old are you?

[Retroj23]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

What era did you grow up in? In other words, how old are you?

You seem to be obsessed with age dont you?

This pricing model you are speaking of ended around 1996. ONE year before DVD came out! How do I know? Because that was the year I was finally able to purchase VHS tapes and not have to pay $89.99 for each tape. I started collecting laserdisc in 1994 and loved the quality compared to VHS but as we all know VHS was in more homes than laserdisc ever dreamed of being in, so in order to enjoy holiday movies on my families VHS player i needed a VHS tape and by that time I could just walk into a Warehouse store (yes thats how old I am) and purchase a VHS tape for around $30.

So again I will tell you for the millionth time, it was the size and convinience of DVD that made it very marketable to the mass consumer not price because prices were ALREADY low for home entertainment media at the time DVD came out.

[Nisei]

I agree. DVD took over from VHS because it was more convenient and, as an added bonus, had higher quality. Exactly the same as why CD took over from vinyl records (although later people started realizing that the quality aspect was debatable).
Here in Europe DVDs were definitely more expensive than VHS so price can't have been the reason people started buying them.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by fathergll

CDs replaced cassettes and MP3s(iPods) replaces CDs. CDs are higher quality than the average 128 kb mp3 file that people were listening to back in 2000.

I find comments like this very funny.

Are there people that don't care? yes. But just because some people hang around with idiots they think the world is that way.

You talk about the general public, but In 2011 for the first time in the US digital music surpassed physical media by very little and it has 50.3 % of the market. with CD being mostly everything else. http://econsultancy.com/ca/blog/8613...asses-physical

If one expands and looks at the world.

Originally Posted by ifpi- International Federation of the Phonographic Industry

Globally, 32 per cent of music industry revenues come from digital sources

http://www.ifpi.org/content/section_...s/dmr2012.html

even though , like you point out crappy DL music has been around for roughly twice as long as BD their market shares are very similar.

Because you post on a niche forum that is dedicate to blu rays. We are talking about the general public.

How is it niche? Look at any blockbuster this year (which means any title that interests the general public) and it sold many more copies on BD then it did on DVD, some going beyond 3 BD copies for every DVD and the rest beyond 2 BD copies for every year.

I am going with BB films because it makes it more evident, someone might buy 10 films and someone else might buy 2 and someone else 1 so total sales can deceive that way, but I think it is safe to say that if someone bought the Avengers (biggest title of the year so far), they did not buy 10 copies or 2 but only 1 so by looking at what they bought (roughly 3 BD copies for every DVD) it is safe to say that the general public that bought that film has moved on to BD.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by Retroj23

So again I will tell you for the millionth time, it was the size and convinience of DVD that made it very marketable to the mass consumer not price because prices were ALREADY low for home entertainment media at the time DVD came out.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...-old-DVDs.html

[oXdanXo]

I think most people upgraded to DVD because it's easier with a disc, if you look after it it's also harder to damage, tapes could end up wiped due to magnetism, and on my tapes since I was a child I would always leave it at a random point in the movie (I think you were supposed to rewind them back to the start) which supposedly caused damage (some of my favourite films would be damaged only a few years after. My first dvd was chicken run which I got pretty soon after the playstation 2 came out and that's still perfect.

DVDs are more durable, they don't degrade or damage as easily, they're smaller, more convenient, and introduced lots of small features, I remember fast fowarding films on video took ages, now you can just chapter skip away.

The jump to Blu Ray isn't as noticeable a picture difference either, unless you have a gigantic TV it's hard to tell, I've seen Batman Begins on DVD upscaled and on Blu ray on the same 40" Samsung, even wearing glasses I can't tell the difference.

If I wasn't slightly OCD (Yes I buy the stupid huge video game collectors editions that end up half price the following week), then I would have very few Blu Rays as nearly all of my Blu Rays I could have picked up cheaper on DVD, especially with films from Disney where I usually then try and pick up the slipcases.

I had Iron Man the 2 disc edition DVD which cost me £3, about a year later I picked up the Blu Ray for £10 and couldn't tell the difference either, I started buying Blus just because they had a few extra special features.

That aside, Blu Ray has taken off, you can pick up a cheap player for £30 and there is always a bargain bin for £5 films and they sell like hot cakes.

[Steedeel]

I truly worry for people who cannot see difference between dvd and bluray. May I suggest laser eye treatment? Just my opinion, but it baffles me. The only conclusion I can arrive at, is that the televisions that people are watching on are so low budget it makes all sources look like crap.

[Lutra]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I truly worry for people who cannot see difference between dvd and bluray. May I suggest laser eye treatment? Just my opinion, but it baffles me. The only conclusion I can arrive at, is that the televisions that people are watching on are so low budget it makes all sources look like crap.

Not everyone has high def tvs. Blu-ray will not look marginally better on something that can only display 480p. The people who have not upgraded either

A) Cannot afford the upgrades (hdtv, blu ray player, blu ray movies to put in said player)

B) Are currently happy with what they have that works and do not want to learn a new system (typically older folks that have not kept up with tech changes--my grandma still watches VHS tapes and has some dvds that are watched on 21 inch tube tvs).


Not everyone wants or needs blu technology to enjoy the films they like. Quality will not sell the product alone. Its economics in a tough economy.

[Steedeel]

Not the point. Obviously watching hd on a sd set is not going to work. I am talking about some one who has a source to take advantage of bluray and still cannot see difference when comparing. Its hardly a 'marginal' difference either.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Lutra

Not everyone has high def tvs. Blu-ray will not look marginally better on something that can only display 480p. The people who have not upgraded either

A) Cannot afford the upgrades (hdtv, blu ray player, blu ray movies to put in said player)

B) Are currently happy with what they have that works and do not want to learn a new system (typically older folks that have not kept up with tech changes--my grandma still watches VHS tapes and has some dvds that are watched on 21 inch tube tvs).


Not everyone wants or needs blu technology to enjoy the films they like. Quality will not sell the product alone. Its economics in a tough economy.

Your post does not make any sense. My Grandparents still don't own a DVD player, the only reason they ever had a VHS was that my parents and aunts and uncles bought it for them so that we as kids would have something to do instead of cause problems so does that mean DVD never made it there is no difference between DVD and VHS? If the definition of something has made it or can make it because it is better then what was there before is if there is no one out there that thinks "I can do without" then there is no technology out there that has ever made it or was worth the upgrade.

[Spicoli]

MOST PEOPLE DON'T CARE. about better picture quality to that degree.


Sorry to say, sad but true.

[FlyMapper]

I didn't read this entire thread, so apologies if this was mentioned. I think one of the reasons bluray is lagging is due in no small part to the studios being so risk averse that they constantly change the DRM. This requires that anyone buying into the format to constantly have to upgrade the firmware, basically making what should be a simple process of buying and playing a movie less of a simple process.

The younger viewers prefer digital downloads, without the physical limitations of having a disk. Those of us who are older, and can appreciate the definate upgrade of quality the bluray provides, are getting weary of the near constant upgrades just to play the stupid movie. I hate when I buy a movie I'm really looking forward to, and upon inserting it, find that i now must go find a newer firmware version, just to play it. The studios are shooting themselves in the foot.

People who haven't yet taken the bluray plunge, and especially those in the older age range (say 50+) who are not technically astute, hear of the need to keep upgrading the players - and stay away. I know of many older persons who have avoided bluray for this reason. They want to plug it in, and play. They dont want to have to fiddle with it every time (or often).

Just my limited experience from those around me. Merry Christmas to everyone (or happy holidays - whichever you prefer) :0)

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I truly worry for people who cannot see difference between dvd and bluray. May I suggest laser eye treatment? Just my opinion, but it baffles me. The only conclusion I can arrive at, is that the televisions that people are watching on are so low budget it makes all sources look like crap.

There are a whole lot of movies that at time just make no difference if they are on dvd or blu ray. Sure The Dark Knight Rises deserves the blu ray treatment, but a film like A Serious Man which I recently watched looked fine in upscaled 1080i. I also paid just $3 for the dvd which was used and part of a 2 for $6 deal. Not sure how anyone in their right mind would rather be watching The Serious Man on blu ray as it would make no difference. There are time when a dvd just makes so much more sense than a blu ray, usually this happens when there is a sensible price difference in favor of dvd.

Originally Posted by FlyMapper

I didn't read this entire thread, so apologies if this was mentioned. I think one of the reasons bluray is lagging is due in no small part to the studios being so risk averse that they constantly change the DRM. This requires that anyone buying into the format to constantly have to upgrade the firmware, basically making what should be a simple process of buying and playing a movie less of a simple process.

The younger viewers prefer digital downloads, without the physical limitations of having a disk. Those of us who are older, and can appreciate the definate upgrade of quality the bluray provides, are getting weary of the near constant upgrades just to play the stupid movie. I hate when I buy a movie I'm really looking forward to, and upon inserting it, find that i now must go find a newer firmware version, just to play it. The studios are shooting themselves in the foot.

People who haven't yet taken the bluray plunge, and especially those in the older age range (say 50+) who are not technically astute, hear of the need to keep upgrading the players - and stay away. I know of many older persons who have avoided bluray for this reason. They want to plug it in, and play. They dont want to have to fiddle with it every time (or often).

Just my limited experience from those around me. Merry Christmas to everyone (or happy holidays - whichever you prefer) :0)

My blu ray player has never needed an upgrade. Although, the player has never been connected to the internet anyway.

Originally Posted by Spicoli

MOST PEOPLE DON'T CARE. about better picture quality to that degree.


Sorry to say, sad but true.

I do not agree. I think most people DO care about picture quality, the difference is that most people know they do not need or require the best possible picture quality to enjoy a film. There are certain times when one wants the best picture and sound. Price does factor into this decision.

We have always had premium higher resolution experiences, all the way back in the 1960;s with 70mm film presentations, and we actually still have these 70mm presentations today. We also have upgraded cinema experiences which are supposed to provide a better experience over regular showings. Keep in mind that these regular showings are the norm. A big opening weekend of a movie like the Dark Knight, Skyfall or Twilight will command people to seek out these premium experiences, but I can't imagine someone wanting or needing to watch Perks of Being a Wallflower in IMAX etc.

Its the same type of thing with dvd or blu ray. Blu ray is a premium experience that requires a hefty upgrade of existing technology. For some movies The Avengers, The Dark Knight Rises, it is well worth it. For others, simply not worth it. The regular customer is not stupid.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Spicoli

MOST PEOPLE DON'T CARE. about better picture quality to that degree.


Sorry to say, sad but true.

If that was true then why did most people care about paying more for Prometheus (over 3 -1) Avengers, TDKR (almost 3-1)? You can use size and colour but it does not make it any more valid.

Now don't get me wrong, there can be the occasional idiot that spends 3$ on DVD, because it is cheap, for a movie they don't like and decide that BD would not make a difference since the 3$ was a big waste to start off with. But then that is just people making excuses for wasting their money.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

If that was true then why did most people care about paying more for Prometheus (over 3 -1) Avengers, TDKR (almost 3-1)? You can use size and colour but it does not make it any more valid.

Now don't get me wrong, there can be the occasional idiot that spends 3$ on DVD, because it is cheap, for a movie they don't like and decide that BD would not make a difference since the 3$ was a big waste to start off with. But then that is just people making excuses for wasting their money.

Prometheus, Avengers, and TDKR are exceptions.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

Prometheus, Avengers, and TDKR are exceptions.

no, I just picked up some of the biggest films of the year because they will be better at showing general buying habits (if a film was only bought by 10 people the results could be skewed either way much more than if it is bought by millions and so the big title will be much more representative of the general public). But if you were a regular in the numbers thread and you did pay attention most films sell better on BD these days and the ones that do not are real close (for example this week there were three new film releases Bourn was 59% BD so way more, we had TED that was 49% so the difference could be rounding and Ice age continental drift that was 41%)

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by Lutra

Not everyone has high def tvs. Blu-ray will not look marginally better on something that can only display 480p. The people who have not upgraded either

A) Cannot afford the upgrades (hdtv, blu ray player, blu ray movies to put in said player)

B) Are currently happy with what they have that works and do not want to learn a new system (typically older folks that have not kept up with tech changes--my grandma still watches VHS tapes and has some dvds that are watched on 21 inch tube tvs).


Not everyone wants or needs blu technology to enjoy the films they like. Quality will not sell the product alone. Its economics in a tough economy.

C) Some people are just cheap and won't bother upgrading unless the product is pratically free. They'll wait until the new technology drops to some arbitrary selected, and ridiculous, price point even if it will take years to a decade to reach that price point.