Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[KRW1]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

It may carry the same name and be backwards compatible, but 4k blu-rays will be a new format.\

Not in the same way DVD - Bluray was. If its got the same name and is backwards compatible, it's more or less the same format. You'll just have to buy a new player to take advantage of 4k.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Oh noes teh sky is falling!

It’s certainly taking a long time to fall, come this October, it’ll be seven years and counting since this thread was formed.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Streaming services are lower cost because new content is not there. If the content is there you pay a lot more (now tv for example) streaming is for the casual consumer, we all know that.

Streaming is for everybody, when it comes to certain product. Not everything that streams is on Blu, and vice-versa. The difference between watching the Walking Dead seasons on Netflix and Blu is how much money again? Spending that cash is not the difference between the casual consumer and the collector; it's an actual dollar figure that either matters to a consumer, or it doesn't.


If that money gap is reduced, it may turn casual consumers into collectors. Do you think the industry is interested in seeing that?

Originally Posted by Steedeel

If bluray disappeared tomorrow, we would be left with films on phones and tablets, along with netflix and amazon for anyone over 40. Collectors need to collect. I wouldn't rule out another physical format beyond 4k.

Blu will not disappear tomorrow. What collectors do is their business, be it movies, baseball cards, comic books, or whatever. But collectors will not drive the overall consumer electronics market, those consumers do. If it wasn't for them, there would be nothing to collect, trust me.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by KRW1

Not in the same way DVD - Bluray was. If its got the same name and is backwards compatible, it's more or less the same format. You'll just have to buy a new player to take advantage of 4k.

and a new tv. The only difference is there doesn't seem like there will be a physical format war this time and it will have the same name (4k blu-ray or similar). It is still a new format.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by partridge

Say what you like about Netflix but their top quality stream looks and sounds amazing; does it rival the blu-ray? probably not, but honestly, I'm not seeing much difference and that's the killer.

you definitely need to get your eyes checked (and probably your hearing if you also can't hear the difference) if you can't see the big difference in PQ between Netflix and BD.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Nick The Slick

Does Netflix and the like even stream surround sound or is it just crappy stereo mixes?

5.1 DD+, so no where near as good as BD

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

I know this is apostasy; but most films just aren't worth $20-$30.

I find comments like this a bit funny, is it about making a ridiculous point by going with the highest price possible? I won't argue if a film is worth 20-30 or even what little value you must place on your own time if the 20-30$ is a big deal to pay for a terrible movie but it is OK to spend 2h (or however long it is )of your time to watch a terrible movie. But don't you realize that movie prices drop quite fast?

why is it only the people that want to make excuses that somehow can't get away from those 30$ BD films? I don't remember the last time I paid 30$ for a film and a few days ago I paid 30$ for 4 films on BD including "Cloudy with a chance of meatballs 2 3D combo at 15$"

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by partridge

But the collector isn't being provided for. Once upon a time DVD was the greatest thing to happen to films ever, with specially made documentaries, alternative viewpoints, etc, etc. Blu-Ray promised to do much the same but with even more possibilities. But where are we now? More and more big films get released on a vanilla BR disc but at the same high price,

I disagree. I tend to watch the extras (since I paid for them and they might have something interesting) but honestly who really cares for them. Maybe there was a time when it was mostly interesting to see how the guy made that imaginary thing come to life and how that movie magic happened, but honestly I find most of the "making of" extras pretty boring since for most films we know how they are made (guy in Green that will be replaced by CGI, background in green that will be replaced by CGI). The most interesting extras tend to be gags, deleted and alternate endings, but even then on most sets they look to be forced just so that the guy can put it on the case that they exist. I much rather the space and BW be used for better PQ and AQ since that is the content I am really interested in, then hours of boring useless self-importance drivel.

digital is already being released a few weeks earlier than disc and it's usually cheaper too.

examples

what's the incentive for the studio to put any effort into the disc when the digital film only version is easier to distribute and saves them money by removing the physical side of the product?

1) it adds cost on the digital side of the product
2) people like me that won't buy a rental since digital (even when purchased) is a rental

I hate it, I really do, but it's what I see happening already. Not so long ago I could buy a triple play for almost every new film; DVD, Blu-Ray and digital copy all in one box. But now, you are lucky if you get a digital copy, you certainly don't get the DVD

But that is because most people are too smart to pay for a DC and so it has no value to lose if it is given away for free. Also my guess is that for any catalogue title if the guy was interested in the DVD he would have already bought it a long time ago, I never understood why studios included it in catalogue titles except for the fact that they probably had the DVDs in stock already.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

While I frequently don't want to spend that amount on a movie either, the reality is that movies for the home are the most inexpensive they've ever been.

One of the great anomalies of the industry is that for catalog titles, frequently the movie is less expensive than the soundtrack CD. Does that make any sense?

IMO, there's no such thing anymore as a blind buy. There are thousands of sites that review films and/or have trailers. The only blind buy is if you walk into a retailer, see a package for a movie that you've never heard of and decide to buy it without checking any websites first.

I've posted this before, but way back in 1959, Famous Monsters of Filmland magazine used to offer a 50-foot 8mm silent version of The Phantom of the Opera (and I suspect a pretty poor quality print) for $4.95 (or for $5.95 in 16mm). That works out to about 4 minutes of footage, depending upon the projection speed. That $4.95 in 1959 is $40.49 today and that $5.95 for the 16mm version is $48.67 in today's dollars. All for what amounts to a poor quality silent trailer.

Back before cable and home video, the only way to see a movie outside of a movie theatre, aside from the films that used to play on over-the-air television, was to buy or rent it on 16mm film. A used print of a 30-year-old "B" movie, was at least $200 1964 dollars (that's over $1500 in today's dollars).

A $35 laserdisc in 1980 is $101 today.

When VHS was first released, it became largely a rental market because to own a title originally cost about $90 (using 1980 as the base year, that's the equivalent of $260 today). Even after price dropped, I remember paying $25-$30 for many titles. $30 in 1985 is over $66 today.

The fact that today, you can buy many catalog DVDs for $3-$4 each and many catalog Blu-rays for $7-$8 is actually completely absurd.

So I think we've all (including myself) gotten a bit spoiled. A $25 title is actually an incredible bargain (and even though I don't want to pay it either). If you're only going to watch it once, it probably doesn't make sense to buy it as a physical format - it would make more sense to stream it, IMO, although if you live in a big city, you could be paying almost that much to see it once in a theatre anyway.

agree

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

you definitely need to get your eyes checked (and probably your hearing if you also can't hear the difference) if you can't see the big difference in PQ between Netflix and BD.

Whether that's correct or not, it doesn't matter - it's all about perception. If a consumer thinks the quality is the same (and that's assuming they care about AQ and PQ in the first place), then they're going to go with the least expensive, most convenient format.

You seem to believe that consumers care about quality because you care about quality, but look around you. Almost no one cares about quality of anything. We eat junk food, we wear crappy clothes, we buy cheap, junk furniture, few are culturally literate and aside from sports, the most popular shows on TV are programs like American Idol and Duck Dynasty.

Also, we live in a disposable society. Those of us who grew up during the great eras of filmmaking think we have to collect films. When films were hard to see and obtain, they were considered more valuable. When a film played roadshow for a year at a time in a big city, like a "Lawrence of Arabia" or "West Side Story", it was considered something special. People got dressed up when they attended these reserved seat attractions.

But today, even $200 million films play for only 2 or 3 weeks. All this money is spent and frequently the film is "meh". There's always another one coming and many of them are pretty much the same as the last one. Plus, we're culturally ignorant. Is it any wonder that young people don't feel the need to collect films (or music for that matter)?

Technology has pushed us to the point where we want instant gratification. Young people don't feel the need to "own" media. This might be driven, in part, by the fact that many young people either can't afford to move out of their parents' home or they must live with a group of people to afford the rent - in either case, their space may be limited. And portable devices mean that they want to watch media when they're remote.

As far as the studios go, the only thing they're concerned about is making money. It's not that they don't care about issuing quality releases, but as I've stated for years now, they're going to support every format that returns revenue and profits, whether it's licensing to cable, licensing to Netflix and other such sites, DVD and BD distribution, Apple TV, other streaming sites, etc.

What have I said in the past that I was always heavily criticized for? I said that BD wasn't going away, but if it wasn't a growth business, studios would do fewer restorations, include fewer special features, issue inferior packaging, etc. And that's exactly what's happening except for the really big titles that they know they can make money on. To date (6/14) in the U.S., BD is 1.19% ahead of last year in units, but -2.08% in revenue. (Overall, physical media is 8.43% behind last year in revenue.) That's not good enough. Last year at this time, BD was 17.22% ahead of 2012 in revenue.

If you want the studios to support BD, then consumers have to support BD. And the reality is they're not. Even among consumers of physical media, BD has only a 21% unit share to date and a 31.6% revenue share. Considering how inexpensive many catalog BD titles now are, that's a pretty poor showing after seven years.

If you're an executive of a studio and you see that 8.43% physical media revenue drop and you have other opportunities, like revenue and streaming, you're going to take them. Because if you don't, not only will you not get your bonus, you'll probably get fired.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

It’s certainly taking a long time to fall, come this October, it’ll be seven years and counting since this thread was formed.

lol and it is mostly the same people saying it (and the whole time it is growing)

[KRW1]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

and a new tv. The only difference is there doesn't seem like there will be a physical format war this time and it will have the same name (4k blu-ray or similar). It is still a new format.

They're already out. I'm just waiting for the first affordable projector to come along before I jump in.

If you can't see a clear difference between the move from VHS to DVD to Bluray and the move from Bluray to 4k Bluray then I can't help any further. It's going to be a far more natural progression and, no, I don't see it as a new format at all, just a bluray with a different spec. I upgrade my player every few years anyway, I'm still buying a bluray player next time, but it will probably play 4k bluray and bluray.

It's all academic anyway, nloody thing isn't even out yet.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

Whether that's correct or not, it doesn't matter - it's all about perception. If a consumer thinks the quality is the same (and that's assuming they care about AQ and PQ in the first place), then they're going to go with the least expensive, most convenient format.

You seem to believe that consumers care about quality because you care about quality, but look around you. Almost no one cares about quality of anything. We eat junk food, we wear crappy clothes, we buy cheap, junk furniture, few are culturally literate and aside from sports, the most popular shows on TV are programs like American Idol and Duck Dynasty.

I never said he should care or that anyone else should care or that he should use or not Netflix. But you are wrong when you it doesn't matter - it's all about perception. I just pointed out that he might want to get his eyes checked if he can barely see the difference because he should care about his own health.

PQ (and AQ) is a measurable thing and so the difference between two streams of the same film can easily be measured and so should be objective and not subjective (with do I care or not) when discussing it. If the person cares about a difference or not is a different story and I honestly don't care which is why I never tell someone happy with Netflix that they should not use it.

If a bum has 1.15 in his pocket and he is hungry and wants to buy something that is 1.20 and he can't afford it, he will care a lot about that 5 cents difference but there is still only a small difference between 1.15 and 1.20 ho matter how much he cares. On the other hand if a billionaire sais " I want what I want and so I don't cares if it will be 3M$ more" it is wrong to say that because he does not care about it that 3M$ is a small difference. I drive just above the speed limit (like most people) so I don't care if there is a sports car that can drive 2x as fast but it would be wrong for me to say that there is not a huge difference in the top speed between that car and mine.

if he said I see a huge difference between BD and Netflix but don't care, I would not have said anything (since that is an opinion and everyone is entitled to one) but he said he can't see much difference and if that is true there is definitely something wrong since there is a huge difference. yes maybe I could have questioned his intelligence by asking if he is not putting in the DVD or I could have questioned his intellectual honest and if he is just using it as a justification because he does not care for quality and only in the money it saves him, but I went with what he posted and the most helpful advice (people should check their eyes and ears regularly, they are important)

[pentatonic]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

PQ (and AQ) is a measurable thing and so the difference between two streams of the same film can easily be measured and so should be objective and not subjective (with do I care or not) when discussing it. If the person cares about a difference or not is a different story and I honestly don't care which is why I never tell someone happy with Netflix that they should not use it.

You know, with logic like that is it safe to assume that if I put 3 gems in your hands, a real diamond, a manufactured diamond and an imitation you would naturally be able to tell me which is which then. They are measurable differences and quite apparent (at least to some). My good friend is a gemologist and can tell you almost instantly with only the naked eye and a few seconds at most, so by your logic, we should all be able to tell them apart, right? Well I can't, even when told what to look for.

Not having a trained eye, or ears (MP3s) doesn't make one an idiot or lower-class citizen. I'd bet most who don't see this difference in BD vs Netflix can do things that you can't, see things you don't, appreciate stuff you couldn't care less. It's called training, experience, passion, hobbyist, etc. By such logic, anyone not a hobbyist is then an idiot for not seeing the obvious.

I don't buy this and never will.

Now I can see the "apples to oranges" point here but it's only this Zoet was talking about when mentioning perception.

What one considers important doesn't need to be such for everyone unless it is a matter of life and death.

Unless you consider that somehow it is possible for someone to be at the top of everything in life.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by pentatonic

You know, with logic like that is it safe to assume that if I put 3 gems in your hands, a real diamond, a manufactured diamond and an imitation you would naturally be able to tell me which is which then.

that does not make much sense.

To answer your question I am guessing that I would not be able to tell which is which by looking at them but I am also ignorant when it comes to jewels and not scared to admit. You are missing that in order to say which is which (in any circumstance not just jewels or movies) one definitely needs knowledge of each thing since one would need to know how the differences they see actually apply.

For example in films (and let's assume it is true for this discussion) if you take a diamond and run it on a mirror it will scratch it while the same action with a fake won't scratch it. if someone has ner seen a film and is ignorant with which one will scratch the mirror and sees one making the scratch and the other not making a scratch how will seeing the scratch help him know which is the diamond and which is fake? and if he can't tell which is the diamond and which is fake will that magically mean he also can't see the obvious scratch one of them made and the lack of a scratch for the other one?


If you wanted your counter example to be relevant you should have asked if I could tell all three are not the same gem and maybe which one you are showing me at any given time, and then I am guessing I would see (even though I would not make heads or tails of it) what your friend can, unless your friend has special vision. I might be able to say you showed me gems A, A, B,C, A,B but I doubt I would be able to say it was real, real, fake, manufactured, real, fake like your friend since the latter would imply I know the differences between the three while the former that I am observant.

Not having a trained eye, or ears (MP3s) doesn't make one an idiot or lower-class citizen

did not say it does but if one can't see or hear the difference between BD and Netflix it would mean they are blind or death or not paying at all attention and not make it invisible or naturally inaudible or inexistent or diminish in any real way the difference.

What one considers important doesn't need to be such for everyone

agree 100% but if something is viewed as important or not it does not change the characteristics of the thing.

I don't consider clothes important and I am wearing a T-shirt that I got pre summer 2004 (not sure when but it was meant to show support for an Athlete we were sponsoring for the 2004 Olympics so it was months before that). Because I don't care should I pretend to be insulted and that they are wrong and mean to point out that I am wearing an old T-shirt? No I am wearing an old T-shirt, is it faded? no, does it have holes? no, is it stained? No, is it old? obviously it is.

unless it is a matter of life and death.

not even then. To a Kamikaze pilot certain death for their country was more important than life. I would never go with that choice.

Unless you consider that somehow it is possible for someone to be at the top of everything in life.

I don't, we all need to decide what is important to us. But, like Zoet, you are missing the obvious. A cubic zirconia does not become a diamond just because someone does not care which is which.

[pentatonic]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

that does not make much sense.



If you wanted your counter example to be relevant you should have asked if I could tell all three are not the same gem and maybe which one you are showing me at any given time, and then I am guessing I would see (even though I would not make heads or tails of it) what your friend can, unless your friend has special vision. I might be able to say you showed me gems A, A, B,C, A,B but I doubt I would be able to say it was real, real, fake, manufactured, real, fake like your friend since the latter would imply I know the differences between the three while the former that I am observant.

But you see, all three types can be found side by side at your jewelers. They sell the real thing, but some also sell manufactured diamonds, which are real diamonds, while other types are plain old imitation diamond gems (with other names). This is a situation any married man would face, not a special event. They really all look alike for the untrained eye. Someone with mild interest could tell apart the entire fabrications from the other 2. Need much more info to distinguish the man-made diamonds from the real.

This is a real life occurrence, valid for all. And trust me if your fiance (If you have) wouldn't care if she can tell, she wants the blu-ray of diamonds.

did not say it does but if one can't see or hear the difference between BD and Netflix it would mean they are blind or death or not paying at all attention and not make it invisible or naturally inaudible or inexistent or diminish in any real way the difference.

The thing you seem to refuse to accept is that yes, some just can't tell. For them black crush is a new soft drink (pop). Shadow detail, what the heck is that, when it's dark they are looking at the action, not the detail. Color banding, my biggest personal pet peeve goes unnoticed by the average consumer (I'm really looking forward to UHD mostly because of color banding personally).

All these nit-picks we find on BD they don't even notice on DVD. And basically it's that they only care about the content, and they purchase a price, not a product. The average consumer rarely upgrades his/her TV. They replace when it dies. I would bet there are still 40-50% of HD equipped consumers who still watch the SD channel on ultra wide. For us it just doesn't make sens. For them it's 100% content, the end.

Just for the heck of it Anthony, are you into music? By that I mean audiophile or very into sound? Now this would def be a perfect medium to compare don't you agree?

If you are, you then know how much stuff I hear in music that most don't even notice. I've been a musician all my life, have worked in the pro audio world and consumer, have some experience in the studio, both sides.

Now, for the sake of argument alone, I'll take for granted you have less experience than I. Would it be far fetched to say chances are my sens of appreciation of sound is much higher than yours, just because I hear things you can't even imagine is caused by what. Not that your not a smart guy, you have no idea what the heck I'm talking about. Should I consider you ill for such, or just say, well Anthony is a fine engineer and, myself, well I could probably teach you a thing or 2 on sound. Do I feel the need to, no, it can't be expected of all, just like HT.

Does that make better sens now?

Edit: As a possibly more tangible example. I own 4 pairs of headphones. Each has it's specific purpose, strengths and sound. Should I expect anyone into music and sound to have as much? Heck most have buds! lol

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

I know this is apostasy; but most films just aren't worth $20-$30.


This has nothing to do with Blu vs. DVD vs. streaming or any of that. It's just that people are not ready to blind buy something that turns out to be terrible as some sort of sign that they're a "movie fan" or "aficiando" or whatever. Twenty bucks is twenty bucks.

Most Blu-ray movies don't cost $20-$30. The average price is around $10-$15 for a catalog movie and $20-$25 for a new release. If you think that's too high, fine, but others don't share that opinion. If they did, then Blu-ray (or DVD) would be dead by now.

[pentatonic]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

Most Blu-ray movies don't cost $20-$30. The average price is around $10-$15 for a catalog movie and $20-$25 for a new release. If you think that's too high, fine, but others don't share that opinion. If they did, then Blu-ray (or DVD) would be dead by now.

I agree, BD prices are very low everything being equal. The problem is that because of the bigger entertainment pie, it is perceived as expensive, if only because it has so much competition compared to all previous formats.

And while that competition is of known lesser quality, the average Joe will use the easiest and cheapest way. Considering the explosion in all of home entertainment, BD having done so well up to now is great. And as of late, at least in the audio world, quality is now "IN" and will be the next big thing. I can't see how that won't transpose in the HT world, they're all the same players after all.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by pentatonic

I agree, BD prices are very low everything being equal. The problem is that because of the bigger entertainment pie, it is perceived as expensive, if only because it has so much competition compared to all previous formats.

And while that competition is of known lesser quality, the average Joe will use the easiest and cheapest way. Considering the explosion in all of home entertainment, BD having done so well up to now is great. And as of late, at least in the audio world, quality is now "IN" and will be the next big thing. I can't see how that won't transpose in the HT world, they're all the same players after all.

True. Physical media is declining not (primarily) because it's too expensive, but because of the competition brought about by more convenient alternatives. Physical media is still a great value (better than ever actually) for those who can appreciate its advantages.

I think we'll reach a point where physical sales revenue will bottom out and then start to go back up again. It's not going to go away any more than books will.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by pentatonic

But you see, all three types can be found side by side at your jewelers. They sell the real thing, but some also sell manufactured diamonds, which are real diamonds, while other types are plain old imitation diamond gems (with other names). This is a situation any married man would face, not a special event. They really all look alike for the untrained eye. Someone with mild interest could tell apart the entire fabrications from the other 2. Need much more info to distinguish the man-made diamonds from the real.

This is a real life occurrence, valid for all. And trust me if your fiance (If you have) wouldn't care if she can tell, she wants the blu-ray of diamonds.

?



The thing you seem to refuse to accept is that yes, some just can't tell. For them black crush is a new soft drink (pop). Shadow detail, what the heck is that, when it's dark they are looking at the action, not the detail. Color banding, my biggest personal pet peeve goes unnoticed by the average consumer (I'm really looking forward to UHD mostly because of color banding personally).

All these nit-picks we find on BD they don't even notice on DVD. And basically it's that they only care about the content, and they purchase a price, not a product. The average consumer rarely upgrades his/her TV. They replace when it dies. I would bet there are still 40-50% of HD equipped consumers who still watch the SD channel on ultra wide. For us it just doesn't make sens. For them it's 100% content, the end.

Just for the heck of it Anthony, are you into music? By that I mean audiophile or very into sound? Now this would def be a perfect medium to compare don't you agree?

If you are, you then know how much stuff I hear in music that most don't even notice. I've been a musician all my life, have worked in the pro audio world and consumer, have some experience in the studio, both sides.

Now, for the sake of argument alone, I'll take for granted you have less experience than I. Would it be far fetched to say chances are my sens of appreciation of sound is much higher than yours, just because I hear things you can't even imagine is caused by what. Not that your not a smart guy, you have no idea what the heck I'm talking about. Should I consider you ill for such, or just say, well Anthony is a fine engineer and, myself, well I could probably teach you a thing or 2 on sound. Do I feel the need to, no, it can't be expected of all, just like HT.

Does that make better sens now?

Edit: As a possibly more tangible example. I own 4 pairs of headphones. Each has it's specific purpose, strengths and sound. Should I expect anyone into music and sound to have as much? Heck most have buds! lol

Buds? Not what I am seeing. They all have beats (unfortunately)

While I would not call them idiots, I do find it stunning that some people can't see banding or watch their tv in stretch mode. Isn't that just ignorance? Don't these people have a duty to use the full potential of whatever they purchase. We live on a world where people scrape the barrel in terms of cheapness and would attack each other over a store sale but buy a HD tv and only watch SD on it. The irony is not lost on me. Then again, people irritate me very easily so maybe I'm not the best person to comment lol.