Sony returning to BD-R?

[DukeTogo84]

https://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=26393

So it looks like Sony is going back to BD-R? It even says Blu-ray Disc on the spine minus the Blu-ray symbol.

[Jay H.]

Fine by me.

[DukeTogo84]

Originally Posted by Jay H.

Fine by me.

So you're OK with paying for a product that tends to cost more than a typical Blu-ray and will not last as long?

[Jay H.]

Originally Posted by DukeTogo84

So you're OK with paying for a product that tends to cost more than a typical Blu-ray and will not last as long?

Look, it's simple. If I pay $20 for a BD-R and it lasts 10 years, I got my money's worth. Can you think of many things that don't need to be replaced that often? TVs, cars, couches, clothing, microwaves...nothing lasts forever.

And I've never seen a BD-R cost more than a regular Blu-ray.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by Jay H.

Look, it's simple. If I pay $20 for a BD-R and it lasts 10 years, I got my money's worth. Can you think of many things that don't need to be replaced that often? TVs, cars, couches, clothing, microwaves...nothing lasts forever.

And I've never seen a BD-R cost more than a regular Blu-ray.

Yes, but it's still possible to replace all the things you listed. Blu-Ray is likely to be the last major physical media format. If these discs fail, it won't be possible to buy a replacement in ten years. That's why people want BDs, which will last much longer.

[HorrorBlu]

Hopefully this is just a one-off and won't effect Just One Of The Guys.

[DukeTogo84]

Originally Posted by HorrorBlu

Hopefully this is just a one-off and won't effect Just One Of The Guys.

That's what I'm hoping for as well or that it's some sort of mistake. They haven't finished with the Morgan Creek titles and it would be a shame to see the Pledge go to BD-R only.

[DukeTogo84]

Originally Posted by Jay H.

Look, it's simple. If I pay $20 for a BD-R and it lasts 10 years, I got my money's worth. Can you think of many things that don't need to be replaced that often? TVs, cars, couches, clothing, microwaves...nothing lasts forever.

And I've never seen a BD-R cost more than a regular Blu-ray.

Most of the Lionsgate BD-R cost more than their regular Blu-rays. Also, BD-Rs are only in circulation for a certain amount of time and become unavailable quicker in comparison to Blu-rays. If your BD-R goes bad, there is a good chance that you WON'T be able to replace it.

[Jay H.]

Originally Posted by DukeTogo84

Most of the Lionsgate BD-R cost more than their regular Blu-rays. Also, BD-Rs are only in circulation for a certain amount of time and become unavailable quicker in comparison to Blu-rays. If your BD-R goes bad, there is a good chance that you WON'T be able to replace it.

I'm just not worried about it.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by DukeTogo84

Most of the Lionsgate BD-R cost more than their regular Blu-rays. Also, BD-Rs are only in circulation for a certain amount of time and become unavailable quicker in comparison to Blu-rays. If your BD-R goes bad, there is a good chance that you WON'T be able to replace it.

Yep, the Lionsgate BD-R of Wonderstruck was only in print for like a year. (Aside from the fact that the compression was so awful that it looked like a 1990s Quicktime movie)

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by Jay H.

And I've never seen a BD-R cost more than a regular Blu-ray.

Then you haven't been looking.

They are typically $5-$10 more, because there's little to no retailer markdown, since they aren't warehouse stock and are made on demand instead. They also rarely if ever go on sale, or are included in sales.

[DukeTogo84]

Originally Posted by Cliff

Can you prove either of those points? Can you prove that a Blu-ray pressed in the same qualities as a BD-R release will cost you less and can you prove that a BD-R studio release will not last as long?

Look at post 16. If I wait a year a Blu-ray title from a major motion picture company can cost as low as $5 from Amazon and other retailers. A BD-R? Not so much. BD-R's will almost always cost more for a plethora of reasons. Just read every post in this topic for more information.

[DukeTogo84]

Originally Posted by Cliff

That's not what I asked you. I asked if you're pressing/selling the same amount is the cost the same?

And I don't need to read every post to educate myself... it's actually my job to know these things.

I guess you misunderstood my post, as I never mentioned how it costs a producer of the disc versus the buyers costs. BD-R's costs buyers more money.

If you need more information the matter read neoreloaded's post. That would be a good one for you to read especially since apparently you're paid to know this stuff.

[IndyMLVC]

Originally Posted by DukeTogo84

I guess you misunderstood my post, as I never mentioned how it costs a producer of the disc versus the buyers costs. BD-R's costs buyers more money.

If you need more information the matter read neoreloaded's post. That would be a good one for you to read especially since apparently you're paid to know this stuff.

Perhaps you should read his response.

He eviscerated neo

[DukeTogo84]

Originally Posted by Cliff

I guess you misunderstood MY post. The cost of production the producer of a disc is in direct correlation to the cost to consumer. I don't know why I'd need to read neoreloaded's take on the matter when it's my job to already know "the matter."

Nobody knows everything. Just because you're job is to already "know", doesn't mean you can't learn and grow within your profession. I feel like you have an opportunity to grow and you're wasting it.

[neo_reloaded]

Originally Posted by Cliff

I guess you misunderstood MY post. The cost of production the producer of a disc is in direct correlation to the cost to consumer. I don't know why I'd need to read neoreloaded's take on the matter when it's my job to already know "the matter."

In my opinion, this is a disingenuous framing of the issue.

Past the breakeven point (traditionally 1000 discs, but some replicators have allowed 500, and a major studio seems like it'd be in a good position to get a replicator to do this for them), pressed discs are cheaper. In fact, I've seem some companies say that they'll switch from BD-R to a pressed batch of 1000 if more than 300 presales are accrued (which raises the further complication of actual sales - if MSRP-times-sales for pressed discs is greater than MSRP-times-sales for burned discs, that shifts the math of what the "breakeven" point in terms of actual profit is....).

Yes, if you only want to make 50 discs, BD-R is cheaper overall by far because 50 discs is not nearly enough to amortize the glass master creation expense required for pressed discs. No one has ever questioned this, and this has been explicitly acknowledged in my and others' replies. Your continued attempt to use this info as some kind of trump card is tiring. No one doubts that the cost per disc to press 50 discs is more than the cost per disc to burn 50 BD-Rs - but no one has EVER pressed just 50 discs or a similarly absurd small number, so no customer has EVER been forced to pay the high resulting MSRP of such a scenario. That scenario just does not exist.

What is implicit in this price conversation, which you either don't recognize or purposefully dance around, is that it seems unlikely that such small numbers of discs would truly be sold for the types of films we're talking about here, hence making your strawman irrelevant. Look at what types of niche films Kino and Shout Factory are regularly pressing; hell, look at what Code Red and ClassicFlix and so on are pressing. Or look at the absolute dreck that Echo Bridge is managing to press and get on Wal-Mart shelves. And none of those companies have the position within the industry that large studios like Paramount and Lionsgate have (leading to better partnerships and deals in both manufacturing and distribution). And those small companies also frequently have the added expense of large licensing costs, an expense not faced by the large studios that own their films outright. Yet somehow we're supposed to think that poor Paramount can't move 500+ copies of popular mainstream films with pop culture significance.

Two illustrative examples: 1) Packing a single copy of a film into the new release shipments sent every Tuesday to every Walmart in the country would already be 4500+ copies. 2) Many of the new-release films that Lionsgate is releasing on BD-R (or sometimes just DVD) are somehow able to sustain pressed Blu-ray releases in Canada, a country with 1/9th or so the population.

And finally, your continued 'appeal to authority' is tiring. You barely addressed my prior points - you just repeated your one main talking point and then deferred to yourself as the industry insider and therefore the correct one. I'm not of the habit of constantly flouting my credentials, but I'm a professional in the computer & electrical engineering field, have degrees in ECE and mathematics, and am more than capable of discussing these matters, from a technical and an economic perspective. But I don't expect ANYONE to care about these things when reading my posts - my post's point should be clear regardless of whose mouth (fingers) it is coming from.

[Professor Echo]

Originally Posted by Cliff

I guess you misunderstood MY post. The cost of production the producer of a disc is in direct correlation to the cost to consumer. I don't know why I'd need to read neoreloaded's take on the matter when it's my job to already know "the matter."

Just because someone works at a job doesn’t necessarily make them an infallible expert for life regarding everything they do. It doesn’t hurt to at least explore other perspectives once in awhile and be open to the POSSIBILITY of learning something new. The world, and especially the internet, are filled with experts who never think they are wrong. Would that it were so, but it’s not reality.

[neo_reloaded]

Originally Posted by Cliff

Can you prove either of those points? Can you prove that a Blu-ray pressed in the same qualities as a BD-R release will cost you less and can you prove that a BD-R studio release will not last as long?

I feel these are fairly noncontroversial statements.

RE: Price

BD-Rs are more expensive per disc than pressed BD-ROMs, but BD-ROMs have the fixed-price overhead of the glass master creation, so there's a breakeven point. Burning a hundred thousand or so BD-Rs for a wide retail release of a popular new theatrical film would be an absurd waste of time and money - pressed BDs are far more economical in that case. Also, BD-R releases are TRULY "made-on-demand," not simply assembled on demand, so there are never "leftovers" that inspire a sale. There is clearly an economic impetus for the stakeholders to use BD-R if they fear low sales, so that saves THEM money, but an end-user is still just buying one disc, so the price per disc is all that matters from their perspective.

Different stakeholders will have different profit expectations (or licensing costs), so I'm sure you can find some expensive BD-ROMs and some cheap BD-Rs, but the price-per-disc from any replicator I've seen is more expensive for BD-Rs (past the 'breakeven' point of course), and knowledge of the manufacturing process backs that up. BD-Rs must be physically manufactured in a manner very similar to BD-ROMs, but BD-ROMs are finished at that point. BD-Rs still must be burned, requiring additional hardware/software infrastructure to automate this process, and thus more expense. The burning process is also much longer than the stamping process.

RE: Longevity

Again, BD-R manufacturing has a lot in common with BD-ROM manufacturing, except there is an additional wrinkle - the writable layer, dye/phase-changing material. Some people love to crow about "I've had pressed discs fail ahahaha!," but the manner of pressed disc failure (traditionally blamed on low-quality resin) is still a potential hazard for BD-Rs. So BD-Rs are still susceptible to failure due to poor resin, and also have unique susceptibility to temperature and light/UV exposure that BD-ROMs do not have. There are also BILLIONS more pressed BD-ROMs in circulation than BD-Rs, so the idea of a handful of specific failures from the 2009 time period being a refutation of BD-ROMs' overall extremely high resiliency is laughable.

Neither of these things are to say that BD-Rs are definitely a disaster. Maybe they will meet their intended use cases without problems. But the idea that "there's no evidence that they have any shortcomings compared to BD-ROM" is just not tenable.

[Troy73]

I only have one BD-R release. It’s from Lionsgate and I’ll admit when I got it and saw it was a BD-R and not a pressed Blu-ray I was upset. The quality of the PQ and AQ is phenomenal however. Other than it being BD-R ,the case and disc label and inserts all look top notch. Unless you looked at the readable side of the disc you would not be able to tell a difference. How long will it last? At the rate we are moving towards all digital, I’ll be happy if I can get 10 years.

[GeoffOliver]

Wow, this is unfortunate. This isn’t a movie I care about, but I’m still worried at the extent they’ll be doing this for future MOD releases. I wish they would just license out titles that they release on BD-R.