Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

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%)

Bourne and Ted are HUGE movies. Show me where Trouble With The Curve or a Woody Allen Midnight in Paris outsold dvd?

BR also has gotten a tremendous boost from BR/DVD/Digital combo packs.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by rdodolak

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.

You are a bit out of line. People are not going to wait a decade to buy a BR player.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

Bourne and Ted are HUGE movies.

http://www.the-numbers.com/market/20...rossing-movies

Ted was #8 and Bourne was # 22 they were not that huge, you can also see that in the home media market where Bourne only sold ~40% as many copies as Ted

but the point was not that they were not that big, but that they also sold many copies on BD (with Ted selling roughly as many and Bourn almost 2 BD copies for every DVD) both show that BD has been very well accepted by the masses

Show me where Trouble With The Curve or a Woody Allen Midnight in Paris outsold dvd?

Honestly does anyone care for those films Midnight in Paris was # 251 Trouble with the Curve was 87 in the box office. Now since these are such niche and crappy titles I doubt we will ever have numbers on how badly they sold in the home market, but let's assume for the fun of it that one of them does brake the top 20 and so we can see how wel it sold on BD compared to DVD, how do you expect me or anyone else to show them to you know when those numbers are not out yet, since the films got releasesd this week?

BR also has gotten a tremendous boost from BR/DVD/Digital combo packs.

Oh now I get , cheap ass idiots that don't care about PQ and don't want to spend $ on BD are all out spending more to get the BD just to chuck it out and watch the DVD

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

You are a bit out of line. People are not going to wait a decade to buy a BR player.

lol, man seriously in what universe do you live, you do realize that in this one people can go out and buy a BD player for under 50$

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

Honestly does anyone care for those films Midnight in Paris was # 251 Trouble with the Curve was 87 in the box office. Now since these are such niche and crappy titles I doubt we will ever have numbers on how badly they sold in the home market, but let's assume for the fun of it that one of them does brake the top 20 and so we can see how wel it sold on BD compared to DVD, how do you expect me or anyone else to show them to you know when those numbers are not out yet, since the films got releasesd this week?
:

These types of movies are not BR driven type of features. A film like Lawrence of Arabia needs to been on BR to understand the full impact. Blu-ray, like laserdisc is a very good format for certain types of movies, for others it would not make much difference.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

Oh now I get , cheap ass idiots that don't care about PQ and don't want to spend $ on BD are all out spending more to get the BD just to chuck it out and watch the DVD

Actually, you don't get it do you?

The blu-ray combo pack is brilliant idea. Lets take a look at Ted for example

Blu-ray combo pack and iTunes HD download are the same price. The blu ray combo offers more value to the consumer, and more flexibility. Charge more for the combo pack, and all of a sudden the iTunes download looks much more appealing.

Given the choice, most people would buy the combo pack.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

lol, man seriously in what universe do you live, you do realize that in this one people can go out and buy a BD player for under 50$

Prove it then?

[AutomaticDriver]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

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.

What other movies are you talking about (the stuff in bold)?

In the case of ASM. Why is someone not in their right mind, if they choose the blu-ray over the dvd? Just because you can not tell a difference, doesn't mean everyone else is the same way.

BTW: The reviewer on this website gave it a 4.5/5.0 for PQ.

[biznus97]

I think this thread is a bit out of control when people start calling others "idiots" based on how they choose to spend their own money. If it is stupid to buy a DVD when there is Blu-ray available, then it would be stupid to buy Blu-ray now when a new format will be out just around the corner. Why even buy films when you can rent for much cheaper and have the latest best in class encodes available at a much lower cost? The bigger question is why should you care how other people spend their money?
Technical advances are only part of the puzzle when it comes to books, movies, games, etc. Availability is the other part. A format will only be useful to people if they can find the movies/content they want.
Also, it seems people take the format's success/failure a bit too seriously. This is a hobby (niche or not) and not much more. Are all the people who feel that Blu-ray will be good enough for them for years to come even if a better format comes out idiots? I don't think so. Everyone has a threshold for quality. Everyone has different budgets allocated for what they can spend on hobbies. And since the average income isn't very high, it wouldn't be wise to spend large amounts of that income on an ever changing format merry-go round. That's why people either hold off until they find the "right" formats to "invest" in (skipping a generation or two) or selectively upgrade and purchase films as the move from one format to the next. Those that are fortunate enough to be able to re-buy everything they own from one format to the next with no worries about how that money could be better allocated are lucky...

[fathergll]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

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.



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.



.

What point are you trying to make here? The first link you posted sums up what I said "For better or worse, the future of music is not the CD, and a huge recent milestone confirms what we have known for a long time: that it's largely digital."

Thats all I am saying, digital is where the market is heading because of the ease the content is allowed to be accessed.

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 didn't mean BD was niche, I meant the idea of someone posting on any forum devoted to certain area in life in itself doesn't represent what the average person wants. The OP stated footprint wasn't as important as I was making out to because he as a consumer didn't footprint as much. Im simply saying its naive for anyone on a BD forum to say that because of the simple fact that hey post on a BD forum. Just like it would be naive for someone on a "I love fat women" forum to make a comment about the general public views larger women in a more attracted light than thinner.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

These types of movies are not BR driven type of features. A film like Lawrence of Arabia needs to been on BR to understand the full impact. Blu-ray, like laserdisc is a very good format for certain types of movies, for others it would not make much difference.

you keep on saying garbage like that, but the simple truth is most people are not like you and it is not about buying the most clutter for the least amount of money. Most people that buy films buy them because they wasn’t to enjoy the film and then it always makes a difference.

Do you think the detail in the actors face, in the scenery, in what people are wearing..... is somehw more important if it gets blown up?

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

Actually, you don't get it do you?

The blu-ray combo pack is brilliant idea. Lets take a look at Ted for example

Blu-ray combo pack and iTunes HD download are the same price. The blu ray combo offers more value to the consumer, and more flexibility. Charge more for the combo pack, and all of a sudden the iTunes download looks much more appealing.

Given the choice, most people would buy the combo pack.

Again, all of that only makes sense if you assume there is value in what is offered. As for movies on itunes there are only a small number of brain dead people that care about that look at the numbers.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

Prove it then?

just walk into your nearest Walmart http://www.walmart.com/ip/LG-BP125-B...layer/21608836

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by Spicoli

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


Sorry to say, sad but true.

Why is it sad? And why does it matter whether they care or not?

1. I've mentioned this many times in these debates and I will mention it again: The boom of the DVD market was not caused by people who demanded superior quality -- people were perfectly fine with PAN/SCAN product. It was driven by approximately 10% of very heavy collectors. And this isn't my observation, it is a fact shared many times by Universal's Craig Kornblau.

Blu-ray's maturation cycle is very similar. The only major difference here is that Blu-ray exists in a completely different economic reality. That's all.

2. Quality has never been the basic driving force behind market phenomenons such as DVD. If this was the case, everyone would be driving Ferraris. And all broadcasting will be in HD.

Pro-B

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

These types of movies are not BR driven type of features. A film like Lawrence of Arabia needs to been on BR to understand the full impact. Blu-ray, like laserdisc is a very good format for certain types of movies, for others it would not make much difference.

This is a very strange statement. There is nothing unique about Lawrence of Arabia that makes it so much more special than hundreds of thousands of other films that need to be "appreciated" on Blu-ray. Maybe there is on certain internet forums where people seem convinced that Lawrence... is everything cinema should be, and beyond it there is nothing else to praise, but the reality is that it is just another film. Classic or not.

Pro-B

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by 3DForLife

What other movies are you talking about (the stuff in bold)?

In the case of ASM. Why is someone not in their right mind, if they choose the blu-ray over the dvd? Just because you can not tell a difference, doesn't mean everyone else is the same way.

BTW: The reviewer on this website gave it a 4.5/5.0 for PQ.

You don't get it, look at his post again. He never saw the BD, he bought the 3$ DVD did not like the film and to justify his 106 minutes of wasted life and the 3$ he is saying that no matter how much better and enjoyable it would have been on BD it would not be worth the extra money.

Note: I am not saying this film is not worth watching, since I have never seen it, I am just pointing out his point of view.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

You don't get it, look at his post again. He never saw the BD, he bought the 3$ DVD did not like the film and to justify his 106 minutes of wasted life and the 3$ he is saying that no matter how much better and enjoyable it would have been on BD it would not be worth the extra money.

Note: I am not saying this film is not worth watching, since I have never seen it, I am just pointing out his point of view.

Actually, I really enjoyed the movie.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by fathergll

What point are you trying to make here? The first link you posted sums up what I said "For better or worse, the future of music is not the CD, and a huge recent milestone confirms what we have known for a long time: that it's largely digital."

Thats all I am saying, digital is where the market is heading because of the ease the content is allowed to be accessed.

I don't know if it is going digital or not, personally I don't care (I just care for quality). The discussion was about quality and you said that people were willing to go to low quality digital music, the first link shows that it has taken a dozen years for digital audio sales to match CD sales in the US and that is after higher (then the original i-tunes) quality digital alternatives have started popping up and if one looks at internationally those digital sales are much lower ( less than 1/3) and are lower to where the BD market is now

I didn't mean BD was niche, I meant the idea of someone posting on any forum devoted to certain area in life in itself doesn't represent what the average person wants.

I agree that you will most likely get the average person (what ever that means) here posting (or anywhere else) but that does not negate anything. I know for a fact (due to some different threads) that there are people here that are very young (teens) and very old (retired) there are males (a lot) and females (just a bit) there are very wealthy and some unemployed, some with Doctorates and some with low education.... So depending on the discussion it could be very far off or very close to the general public.

The OP stated footprint wasn't as important as I was making out to because he as a consumer didn't footprint as much. Im simply saying its naive for anyone on a BD forum to say that because of the simple fact that hey post on a BD forum. Just like it would be naive for someone on a "I love fat women" forum to make a comment about the general public views larger women in a more attracted light than thinner.

agree with the second part, and I would agree if it would be I am willing to spend more, but I can't see how footprint would work that way, I am guessing there are some hoarders here and some people that are the opposite (no matter what it is called). in a way I would almost assume the opposite, I know I prefer thinner cases for BDs with the ultra thin ones for box sets but thick enough for the spine to hold the title for the rest just because I have so many that taking up a bit less space would help a lot (i.e. if I can fit ~100 per shelf instead of the ~70 that would save a lot of place and I would not need as many media cases.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

This is a very strange statement. There is nothing unique about Lawrence of Arabia that makes it so much more special than hundreds of thousands of other films that need to be "appreciated" on Blu-ray. Maybe there is on certain internet forums where people seem convinced that Lawrence... is everything cinema should be, and beyond it there is nothing else to praise, but the reality is that it is just another film. Classic or not.

Pro-B

Lawrence of Arabia should be seen on blu ray. The movie was filmed in 70mm and the original negative was scanned at 4K resolution (all done with theatrical distribution in mind)...all other transfers for this movie were done with a 35mm print.

Seeing the movie on blu-ray allows one to use the blu ray format at the best of its abilities.

[Steedeel]

Too many assumptions about the 'average person'. Perfect example is my nephew, he listens to mp3 on his Ipod despite loving music. However, he buys blurays despite not being quite as passionate about his films as he is about music. The comparison is moot in this case. I think (strictly just my opinion) that this board is getting more and more people who just want to have a pop at bluray for whatever reason?