Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by SolidRaider

I'm bothered that Netflix HD movies look too good.

I don’t think you’re nearly as bothered as some employees of the Mouse House are right now …
”In the homevideo division, as the sales of physical discs continues to decline and as the studio embraces more digital distribution platforms, fewer individuals are needed to manage that business. Iger believes digital deals with companies like Netflix and Apple’s iTunes are more profitable ways to offer up Disney’s library of films and TV shows.”

http://variety.com/2013/biz/news/dis...ve-1200333321/

[mjbethancourt]

I don't know what kind of paint-thinner some of you guys have been chugging, but Wormraper is absolutely correct, streaming content, specifically Netflix content, is a pitiful joke. It only takes a couple months to run out of quality titles, then you're stuck with foreign B-movies and lame TV shows. My own modest blu-ray collection is a far superior selection, evidenced by the fact that my Netflix-using friends always ask me to bring over blu-rays to watch; but when we do try to watch Netflix, I usually suggest about a dozen titles which they don't have, before we give up.

I'm not the least bit worried about the quality of streaming catching up to blu-ray, because it isn't happening. I'm only concerned that the bad tastes and ignorance of the masses could pursuade home media distributors to put us through something like the crap we endured through the 1980s with those terrible audio cassettes that were only popular because they were cheap and easy to copy.

Regarding the OP, I really don't understand your dilemma. If cheap and abundant junk-media makes you second-guess the choice to collect videos, then I think you should have never begun buying videos in the first place, as junk media has always been cheaply and widely available, we've had TV since the 1950s, and radio for even longer.

...I think the fellow that suggested Netflix shillery may be on to something.

I might find an old movie or doc that appeals to me, but I have so much content on Blu-ray to watch and it looks so much better, that I simply don't have time for Netflix streaming. When you have so much high quality programming available on BD with great PQ/AQ, why should I waste my time with anything less? I already own so much, so it's not a money issue as my collection is a sunk cost. The issue is finding enough time to watch what I normally buy, much less finding other stuff to watch that is less appealing in every imaginable way.

BruceAmes has struck the nail right on the head.

[cricepng]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

I don't know what kind of paint-thinner some of you guys have been chugging, but Wormraper is absolutely correct, streaming content, specifically Netflix content, is a pitiful joke. It only takes a couple months to run out of quality titles, then you're stuck with foreign B-movies and lame TV shows. My own modest blu-ray collection is a far superior selection, evidenced by the fact that my Netflix-using friends always ask me to bring over blu-rays to watch; but when we do try to watch Netflix, I usually suggest about a dozen titles which they don't have, before we give up.

I agree that Netflix seems to be a joke regarding their movie collection, but for my 10 months in the States, it a major money saver for catching up on TV shows that I missed over the previous 3 years away. I don't need to buy an expensive cable subscription or buy/rent DVDs/BDs of shows that I only plan on watching once. I've gotten through all finished seasons of Psych, a lot of older Doctor Who, most of Top Gear, some Downton Abbey with my wife, miscellaneous older cartoons with the kids and lots more. Plus I then get to save all of my new BDs for when I move back overseas and have almost nothing to watch on TV.

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by cricepng

I agree that Netflix seems to be a joke regarding their movie collection, but for my 10 months in the States, it a major money saver for catching up on TV shows that I missed over the previous 3 years away. I don't need to buy an expensive cable subscription or buy/rent DVDs/BDs of shows that I only plan on watching once. I've gotten through all finished seasons of Psych, a lot of older Doctor Who, most of Top Gear, some Downton Abbey with my wife, miscellaneous older cartoons with the kids and lots more. Plus I then get to save all of my new BDs for when I move back overseas and have almost nothing to watch on TV.

Yours would constitute a very prudent, practical, and productive use of streaming video services. Others suggesting it should replace a blu-ray library, are not being so practical.

[Semp1]

It also started out at an average of almost $1,000 a player where DVD started at $400 a player.

[mrr1]

Originally Posted by DGates01

The Blu-ray/HD DVD war put BD behind by 4-5 years.

That's for sure.

I only got a Blu Ray player in late 2009 because I was unsure of what would happen from that stupid format war.

[gabbott]

There was a much bigger jump in terms of audio/video quality and convenience from VHS to DVD than there is from DVD to Bluray (in the eyes of the average consumer).

I believe it is that as well as the HD-DVD/Bluray format "war" as the reasons adoption is slower.

[mjbethancourt]

When DVD came out, most people didn't have home video libraries nearly as large as what is typical now. People rented lots of tapes, and made bad recordings of TV broadcasts. Home video ownership is much more saturated now.

It cost a lot more to switch to HD than it did to change to DVD. People needed to drop a couple grand on an HDTV, and that slows down the speed of adoption.

An economic crash at the worst possible timing for BD.

There is some sense of upgrade-fatigue in the public, but that's largely post blu-ray. As others have mentioned, any new format in the next few years will face a lot of resistance from upgrade-fatigue.

I do not believe the format war was a significant factor at all. That was over long before HD-DVD finally gave up, really it was over before it began, it was debated in the past-tense by people who got "burned" by it. It was already history well before blu-ray became widely available. The "format war" was not a war at all, it was utterly overblown, HD-DVD never stood a chance, it was designed with no future. There was no format war, there was just a bunch of angry people on the internet for a couple of years who were pissed off and stubborn because they foolishly sunk their money into a product that was dead on the launchpad. The noise was not proportional to the miniscule market-share that was effected.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

When DVD came out, most people didn't have home video libraries nearly as large as what is typical now. People rented lots of tapes, and made bad recordings of TV broadcasts. Home video ownership is much more saturated now.

It cost a lot more to switch to HD than it did to change to DVD. People needed to drop a couple grand on an HDTV, and that slows down the speed of adoption.

An economic crash at the worst possible timing for BD.

There is some sense of upgrade-fatigue in the public, but that's largely post blu-ray. As others have mentioned, any new format in the next few years will face a lot of resistance from upgrade-fatigue.

I do not believe the format war was a significant factor at all. That was over long before HD-DVD finally gave up, really it was over before it began, it was debated in the past-tense by people who got "burned" by it. It was already history well before blu-ray became widely available. The "format war" was not a war at all, it was utterly overblown, HD-DVD never stood a chance, it was designed with no future. There was no format war, there was just a bunch of angry people on the internet for a couple of years who were pissed off and stubborn because they foolishly sunk their money into a product that was dead on the launchpad.

You make some very good points. The most important was libraries, people who already have large dvd libraries were not going to upgrade to blu ray (I sure as hell will not). Also pricing is an important factor as well as DVD introduced street-date pricing to the masses.. Blu ray did not introduce "home video" collecting to the masses, that was already established by DVD...and laserdiscs for the enthusiasts.

I also do not think the format war had any effect.

Now, a few interesting points I think need to considered:

1. What would blu ray sales be today if there were no combo packages?

2. How has digital downloading been helped by the combo packs?

3. And finally, how has HD cable/satellite broadcasting helped with blu ray HD penetration?

Currently, a comparable priced DVD/BR/Digital combo pack is the best value if you are planning to buy a movie...

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

Now, a few interesting points I think need to considered:

1. What would blu ray sales be today if there were no combo packages?

2. How has digital downloading been helped by the combo packs?

3. And finally, how has HD cable/satellite broadcasting helped with blu ray HD penetration?

Currently, a comparable priced DVD/BR/Digital combo pack is the best value if you are planning to buy a movie...

While those would all be very interesting answers to have, I don't think there's any way to accurately quantify them, they depend on a lot of hypothetical modeling.

[KRW1]

Originally Posted by mrr1

That's for sure.

I only got a Blu Ray player in late 2009 because I was unsure of what would happen from that stupid format war.

Me too. If you'd asked me in 2008, I'd have said neither format would take off because HD isn't enough of a jump and the format war killed it. Now, I'm coming up to 800 discs and see no signs of stopping or

There was absolutely no point investing in a player until there was a definitive platform, and a lot of people felt the same. I feel bad I missed the 'format wars' but, from the outside, they were kind of amusing.

[blonde_devil]

maybe it is unfair to compare dvd to bluray. dvd was a huge step in regards to movies compared to vhs. size, quality, features - dvd was a huge leap forward at a pretty decent price and you would see the reasons why. with bluray, there are improvements compared to dvd but it isn't seen as that huge leap because they are all technical improvements that don't jump out - it still looks like a dvd, the menus work like dvds did, etc. sure you get better sound and picture but most people are still watching SD tv so it isn't something they feel they need. I think times changed and it isn't that bluray hasn't taken off as much as you can't take off the same way. When we start getting to movies on flash drives or isolinear chips or whatever the next big media format is, then you will see the huge jump again but until then, I think things are going to be more of a gradual change.

[cricepng]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

1. What would blu ray sales be today if there were no combo packages?

2. How has digital downloading been helped by the combo packs?

I cannot speculate too well for a lot of people, but combo packs helped me get into blu-ray. I could pick them up for about the same cost of a DVD and was ready for my first player a few months later. My wife is more happy with my spending when I can have both in our library.

With regard to digital downloading. I just look at that as a less than ideal substitute for not being allowed to legally back up my discs. Almost no one I know really considers streaming/downloading to be their main source of movie watching. Physical media (whether DVD or BD) still far dominates. I might have 20 movies or TV shows in digital (mostly due to VUDU freebies), but I never watch them that way.

[DGates01]

I think we're just now at that sweet spot with Blu-ray players and movies titles being priced reasonably enough to draw in new converts. And some brand name players have gotten as cheap as a Roku. So with these cheaper Blu-ray players, you're getting the same streaming capabilities, but you can also play BD's and DVD's, making Roku irrelevant. Consumers want the best bang for their buck, and Blu-ray is just about there.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

Now, a few interesting points I think need to considered:

1. What would blu ray sales be today if there were no combo packages?

2. How has digital downloading been helped by the combo packs?

3. And finally, how has HD cable/satellite broadcasting helped with blu ray HD penetration?

Currently, a comparable priced DVD/BR/Digital combo pack is the best value if you are planning to buy a movie...

Interesting questions there.

Let me ask you a question then:

1. What do you think initial sales of DVD would have been if the likes of Reel.com, and a few other big sites that eventually mutated into bigger businesses, would not have given away 10+ discs for pennies? I personally obtained quite a few discs for totals that even today sound incredibly low. These types of giveaways never existed with Blu-ray. The infamous BOGOs Blu-ray had cannot even being to compare with what Reel did.

2. One other observation on a point that was made earlier: The very first DVDs that came on the market most definitely did NOT represent a significant jump in quality over VHS. (Now, the fact that people did not have to rewind their films is an entirely different story; DVD was definitely an upgrade). The people that are making these claims must have gotten into the hobby late, long after anamorphic transfers became the norm. In 1996/97, many DVDs had transfers that were basically on par with what used to be available on VHS, hence the PAN/SCAN outcries. The serious upgrades came later on, after DIVX was killed, and after the studios saw the potential DVD had.

Miramax's DVD release of Jean Delannoy's The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1956) is a prime example of the type of (poor) quality DVD offered even after the majors started paying attention to what was put on the market (circa 2001/2002). The upgrades, however, affected mostly big sellers and popular "new" titles. Well into 2002 there were many catalog titles that looked as poor as they did on VHS.

(By the way, I never managed to get an anamorpchic R1 DVD release of The Hunchback of Notre Dame).

Pro-B

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

Interesting questions there.

Let me ask you a question then:

1. What do you think initial sales of DVD would have been if the likes of Reel.com, and a few other big sites that eventually mutated into bigger businesses, would not have given away 10+ discs for pennies? I personally obtained quite a few discs for totals that even today sound incredibly low. These types of giveaways never existed with Blu-ray. The infamous BOGOs Blu-ray had cannot even being to compare with what Reel did.

Never heard of reel.com

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

Interesting questions there.
2. One other observation on a point that was made earlier: The very first DVDs that came on the market most definitely did NOT represent a significant jump in quality over VHS. (Now, the fact that people did not have to rewind their films is an entirely different story; DVD was definitely an upgrade). The people that are making these claims must have gotten into the hobby late, long after anamorphic transfers became the norm. In 1996/97, many DVDs had transfers that were basically on par with what used to be available on VHS, hence the PAN/SCAN outcries. The serious upgrades came later on, after DIVX was killed, and after the studios saw the potential DVD had.

DVD in my market started appearing in 1997, and early DVDs releases were anamorphic and did have exceptionally good picture quality, however not all early release dvds were anamorphic. At the start, newer movies that were recently in theatres would often get the anamorphic treatment, Warner was one of the leaders.

River Wild released 12/97, Fire Down Below 10/97, Batman Forever 5/97, Austin Powers 10/97 were all titles that come to mind that were anamorphic.

I will say that yes, not all early dvd releases were anamorphic and it did take a while for some of the library titles to catch up, a good example is the 1989 Batman, that was originally released with just letterbox and required a flip of the disc for side "B" as the movie was spread out on two sides.

Also, many early dvd releases were in fact the same laserdisc transfer only it was transferred to dvd.

For the most part, dvd as early as 1997 was a significant jump over the picture quality from a VHS anamorphic or not.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

Never heard of reel.com

Well, this pretty much tells me that you were not following closely what was happening on the market. Reel were notorious for giving gift certificates that could get you a large amount of DVDs for pennies.

Originally Posted by pagemaster

DVD in my market started appearing in 1997, and early DVDs releases were anamorphic and did have exceptionally good picture quality, however not all early release dvds were anamorphic.

I am very sorry, but we are going to have to agree to disagree here. The first DVDs that came on the market most definitely were not of exceptionally good quality. Obviously, I do not know what you were buying, but large libraries, such as Miramax/Touchstone and Paramount's were notorious for poor non-anamorphic DVDs. On top of that, these were also very expensive titles, which is why many, many aficionados that used to post on various forums went to Columbia House's DVD club to get them. (Under 10$ per title was the desired price).

Paramount, which also used to be very slow with catalog releases -- which is something a lot of people do not seem to remember when they criticize their Blu-ray output -- was notorious for poor releases.

Another big library that had very poor releases is the defunct Polygram (if I recall correctly, portions of the catalog later moved to USA Films).

Universal also had a ton of very poorly mastered DVDs that were also priced very high. The likes of Out of Sight and Animal House immediately come to mind.

The real boom with strong DVD releases (meaning good transfers and supplemental features) came after Fox's Special Edition of Fight Club. After this release things slowly started to move in the right direction.

Originally Posted by pagemaster

At the start, newer movies that were recently in theatres would often get the anamorphic treatment, Warner was one of the leaders.

As I said earlier, decent transfers were done only for big releases. And Warner was ahead of everyone else because they were pushing for low prices, something they did with Blu-ray as well. They were the exception, not the norm. The norm was poor quality, plus many, many PAN/SCAN releases.

Originally Posted by pagemaster

Also, many early dvd releases were in fact the same laserdisc transfer only it was transferred to dvd.

Indeed. Actually, the overwhelming majority.

Originally Posted by pagemaster

For the most part, dvd as early as 1997 was a significant jump over the picture quality from a VHS anamorphic or not.

I am sorry. This isn't true. See my comment about Fight Club.

Pro-B

[Canada]

to step up to VHS from DVD you only needed a standard TV to to enjoy DVD, to notice the difference between DVD and Blu ray you need an HDTV, receiver, and external speakers.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by Canada

to step up to VHS from DVD you only needed a standard TV to to enjoy DVD, to notice the difference between DVD and Blu ray you need an HDTV, receiver, and external speakers.

This is definitely a very good point, Canada

Once you have the proper system, however, the difference truly is enormous.

And if you have a projector, everything moves up to an entirely different level.

Pro-B

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by Canada

to step up to VHS from DVD you only needed a standard TV to to enjoy DVD, to notice the difference between DVD and Blu ray you need an HDTV, receiver, and external speakers.

This is not true, to appreciate DVD at its best quality vs vhs, during that time you would need a widescreen TV, a player with component out, a receiver and external speakers as well.