Blu-rays are 8 years old and DVDs still cling to them like a cancerous tumor. Why?

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

I live in an apartment building and I sometimes help my neighbors out with their installations and I can't tell you the number of times that people with HDTVs were watching the SD cable channels instead of the HD because they didn't know the difference and because for OTA channels, the SD channel number matches the OTA channel number (Channel 2 for CBS in NYC for example, whereas the HD version is on 602). I program their cable box to skip over the SD channels and now they see the channel in HD and they go, "oh yeah, that does look a little better".


I don't have numbers for the UK so I don't know if the statement stands up to the data, but I do know that the UK was in recession in the 1950s and money was very tight. On the other hand, movies were usually an entertainment bargain.

In the U.S:
1946: about 86 million admissions per week (61% of the population averaged a movie a week)

1950: 50 million weekly admissions (33% of the population averaged a movie a week)
The interesting thing about the above number is that according to Nielsen, there were only 3.9 million TV homes in 1950. So why did movie attendance drop by 36 million tickets per week in just four years? (Some think it was because returning GIs moved out of the cities to the suburbs where there weren't a lot of movie theaters yet and once they started having kids, there weren't enough baby sitters, so they didn't go out much. And after WWII, a lot of the old urban downtowns, where the big movie theaters were, deteriorated and became areas that were perceived to be dirty and dangerous.)

1964: 20 million weekly admissions (10.4% of the population averaged a movie a week)

2012: 26.2 million weekly admissions (8.36% of the population averaged a movie a week).

Just going by what my relatives tell me. Theatres and movie halls were hugely popular and often a form of escapism (still is)

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Scarface32

On the back cover of one of my Disney movies, it says the DVD is intended for SUVs that have built-in DVD players (and screens).

But when I was a kid, my patents crammed 3 kids in the back seat of a 2-door car. So this whole "I'm a parent now, I need to buy an SUV" mindset is stupid.

It's so obvious that you don't have kids...

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

I live in an apartment building and I sometimes help my neighbors out with their installations and I can't tell you the number of times that people with HDTVs were watching the SD cable channels instead of the HD because they didn't know the difference and because for OTA channels, the SD channel number matches the OTA channel number (Channel 2 for CBS in NYC for example, whereas the HD version is on 602). I program their cable box to skip over the SD channels and now they see the channel in HD and they go, "oh yeah, that does look a little better".


I don't have numbers for the UK so I don't know if the statement stands up to the data, but I do know that the UK was in recession in the 1950s and money was very tight. On the other hand, movies were usually an entertainment bargain.

In the U.S:
1946: about 86 million admissions per week (61% of the population averaged a movie a week)

1950: 50 million weekly admissions (33% of the population averaged a movie a week)
The interesting thing about the above number is that according to Nielsen, there were only 3.9 million TV homes in 1950. So why did movie attendance drop by 36 million tickets per week in just four years? (Some think it was because returning GIs moved out of the cities to the suburbs where there weren't a lot of movie theaters yet and once they started having kids, there weren't enough baby sitters, so they didn't go out much. And after WWII, a lot of the old urban downtowns, where the big movie theaters were, deteriorated and became areas that were perceived to be dirty and dangerous.)

1964: 20 million weekly admissions (10.4% of the population averaged a movie a week)

2012: 26.2 million weekly admissions (8.36% of the population averaged a movie a week).

Yep, to add to your comments my parents friends though they were watching HD because their tv stated HD ready! No wonder they weren't that keen on HD!


My mother was asking me if her DVD player still played cassette tapes last week. (I kid you not) when I asked her if she had any cassettes she said no!

[thegoat]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

So is Avatar the same experience in SD? Will you be watching the new Star Wars films in SD? Films are a visual experience. Do I want to watch every movie on bluray? You bet your bottom dollar I do! Think about the joker's make up in the dark Knight or the crisp inky blackness in Gravity. In SD or dvd that just becomes a murky blocky mess. The story is enhanced by the visuals. Even black and white movies look delightful on bluray (check out the White Ribbon)

Finally, the attention to detail you mention is enhanced by the resolution. Think of the fabrics in a costume drama or the make up in a horror movie.

Visual detail can enhance the story, but all of the films you cited are spectacle films. Truth be told, I'd be fine watching revisiting something like Casablanca on VHS because the script and performances are so enjoyable. The Blu-ray looks great, but my bank account isn't bottomless, and I'm not watching the film to be dazzled by the visuals. I'll hang on to my DVD for now and buy titles that I haven't yet seen.

We still have a VCR set up in our bedroom with an old tube TV and occasionally revisit old videotapes (most recently, some animated films and Titanic and yes, the '95 Star Wars release, though I own the films on BD as well). It's nostalgic for those of us who grew up with the format, and sometimes it's nice to just cozy up and enjoy a good story without trying to judge the A/V quality or replicate a theatrical experience. I think a lot of people get so caught up in looking for grain, aliasing, black crush, DNR, etc. (let alone steelbooks, slipcovers, and the like) and identify a technically flawless transfer that they totally overlook the actual elements of film-making and what makes cinema so magical. Remember when people where talking about how amazing the Balrog scene in Fellowship of the Ring was and not arguing over the movie's color scheme?

To put it quite simply, I would much rather watch a VHS of Alien than a Blu-ray of Alien: Resurrection any day of the week.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by thegoat

Visual detail can enhance the story, but all of the films you cited are spectacle films. Truth be told, I'd be fine watching revisiting something like Casablanca on VHS because the script and performances are so enjoyable. The Blu-ray looks great, but my bank account isn't bottomless, and I'm not watching the film to be dazzled by the visuals. I'll hang on to my DVD for now and buy titles that I haven't yet seen.

We still have a VCR set up in our bedroom with an old tube TV and occasionally revisit old videotapes (most recently, some animated films and Titanic and yes, the '95 Star Wars release, though I own the films on BD as well). It's nostalgic for those of us who grew up with the format, and sometimes it's nice to just cozy up and enjoy a good story without trying to judge the A/V quality or replicate a theatrical experience. I think a lot of people get so caught up in looking for grain, aliasing, black crush, DNR, etc. (let alone steelbooks, slipcovers, and the like) and identify a technically flawless transfer that they totally overlook the actual elements of film-making and what makes cinema so magical. Remember when people where talking about how amazing the Balrog scene in Fellowship of the Ring was and not arguing over the movie's color scheme?

To put it quite simply, I would much rather watch a VHS of Alien than a Blu-ray of Alien: Resurrection any day of the week.

Fair enough, it's your choice dude. By the way, Alien is one of my faves! It looks awesome on bluray.

I will always seek the very best representation of a movie, same as my music.

[Scarface32]

Originally Posted by jlk5844

I would have to agree the difference between DVD and Blu-ray is huge for me now. I can't even watch my DVDs unless I have to (don't have the Blu-ray yet or the Blu-ray doesn't exist at the moment). I'm more motivated to watch a lesser movie on Blu-ray than a better movie on DVD, usually anyway.



For most releases, yes. But with some sets, like Criterions now, HBO TV season sets, and Crystal Lake Memories for instance, it does take up more space.

You were saying?

[Scarface32]

Originally Posted by buzzwoody

-Bonus features, unrated versions, bloopers, behind the scenes, etc didn't exist on home media before

Not true, take a look at The Matrix on VHS, it has bonus content after the movie. It's a pain if you only want to watch the bonus content, you have to fast-forward to it, but it's there. In fact, the VHS as the exact same bonus content as the DVD.

Also several VHS tapes had bloopers at the end of the movie.

[Scarface32]

Originally Posted by bhampton

The way I saw it DVD was the first home video format that didn't suck.

Then after a while... EVERYTHING could be found on DVD any and every thing.

Now, Blu is only better but dvd was a real big deal. It's kind of good that it was SOOO popular... that part is kind of good for blu I think.

There are still some movies that have only had VHS releases.

[Scarface32]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

BD still has a relatively low adoption rate.

"Today, something like 60 percent of the discs we sell are Blu-rays, 40 percent DVDs. The good news is that the growth of Blu-ray has more than made up for the slide in DVD, and our overall audience is growing. But now, instead of having one physical product to produce we have two, and that’s where the problem starts."

http://www.criterion.com/current/pos...hy-dual-format

Criterion has 60% of sales going to Blu-ray, that doesn't look like a "relatively low adoption rate" to me.

[Scarface32]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

It's so obvious that you don't have kids...

Actually I do have one. But like I said, my parents had THREE and we all got in the back seat without any problems. Just lift the front seat, and climb in.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

It's so obvious that you don't have kids...

And that has what to do with the discussion here...?

[Johnny Vinyl]

Cancerous tumor? Really now!

Just because you only want to watch movies on the Blu-ray format doesn't mean DVD's are a cancerous tumor. There are millions and millions of people who don't care about the difference in quality between the 2 formats.

There is obviously still a huge market for DVD's, so back off.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by Scarface32

You were saying?

Well, technically it does take up more space. My wife and I have gotten the True Blood seasons as they've been released, so we have the earlier seaons from before DVDs were included, and the more recent ones have the DVDs. Those newer boxes are a bit wider. Only a very slight amount of additional space, but more none the less. LOL

Now, by no means am I agreeing with his point, as to me this is so small and slight that it's really not worth worrying about. I guess it could be argued that once you have several of these sets with the DVDs included, the additional space they take up would be the equivalent of one or two Blu-Ray movies in standard cases.

But honestly anyone who is really worried about shelf space should just print up custom artwork and put the Blu-Rays in standard 5 or 6 disc cases (or whatever size is needed for the set in question). Even when DVDs weren't included with them, those digipacks were already horribly inefficient as far as shelf space goes. If one is going to complain about the extra space that the DVDs take up, then they should first and foremost complain about the inefficient packaging in general.

[Scarface32]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

If one is going to complain about the extra space that the DVDs take up, then they should first and foremost complain about the inefficient packaging in general.

I know exactly what you mean. "The Jazz Singer" does not need to be that thick. You can include a book without it taking up that much space, Criterion does it, so why do other studios such as FOX and Warner Bros. fail at it?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by AnamorphicWidescreen

This is a very interesting thread, with great responses...

Stick around, we regularly get a new thread or the resurrection of an old thread with a new post concerning some challenge or impediment, real or perceived, imminent, or in the future, to the Blu-ray format.

The ‘peasant’ line though I found rather unique and caused me to cough up a little of my morning coffee when I read it.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Johnny Vinyl

Cancerous tumor? Really now!...

Johnny, how about a large ‘tu-muh’ - as Arnold Schwarzenegger would say

"It might be a tumor" - YouTube

but with no chance of malignancy and which lays there for 10 years not invading ‘the host’…http://www.aafp.org/afp/2012/0615/p1191.html

Or should scorpiontail just stay completely away from all types of abnormal cell growth in general?

[nick4Knight]

Originally Posted by Johnny Vinyl

Cancerous tumor? Really now!

Just because you only want to watch movies on the Blu-ray format doesn't mean DVD's are a cancerous tumor. There are millions and millions of people who don't care about the difference in quality between the 2 formats.

There is obviously still a huge market for DVD's, so back off.

Actually, I think there are more likely BILLIONS who don't care about quality. Of the people who watch movies, I'd estimate only about 25% watch movies at home they pay for - physically or digitally. Of that, less than half is blu-ray titles based on a lot of sales figures we see.

So, out of the consumer population it would likely be a billion people or up to 2 billion who don't *actively* care about quality.

That is, with their wallet buy blu-ray titles for their HDTV. Yes, a lot of that 1-2 billion have other priorities (family, schooling, drugs/alcohol, holidays, retirement) for the money required for a sole blu-ray collection, but the estimate remains valid.

Everyone in my circles/family knows I have a wall of blu-rays (600+), am generally a HT geek, and not ONE person has ever mentioned another person in these combined circles of people they know that is a collector of blu-ray to the extent I do.

Therefore just in my life there are tens of thousands of people that maybe pinch hit a partial collection to play on ps3 (nothing to be a talking point with me), have only DVD collecting prowess, or download stuff.

I've spoken to plenty of people who have new titles that are big. You know the ones....heaps generic that joe blow think look cool? Avatar, Watchmen, Transformers, Star wars, Prometheus, 300, TDK, Star Trek, Iron Man, Inception, Matrix, Skyfall, Indiana Jones. Yada yada yada.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by nick4amber

Actually, I think there are more likely BILLIONS who don't care about quality. Of the people who watch movies, I'd estimate only about 25% watch movies at home they pay for - physically or digitally. Of that, less than half is blu-ray titles based on a lot of sales figures we see.

So, out of the consumer population it would likely be a billion people or up to 2 billion who don't *actively* care about quality.

That is, with their wallet buy blu-ray titles for their HDTV. Yes, a lot of that 1-2 billion have other priorities (family, schooling, drugs/alcohol, holidays, retirement) for the money required for a sole blu-ray collection, but the estimate remains valid.

Everyone in my circles/family knows I have a wall of blu-rays (600+), am generally a HT geek, and not ONE person has ever mentioned another person in these combined circles of people they know that is a collector of blu-ray to the extent I do.

Therefore just in my life there are tens of thousands of people that maybe pinch hit a partial collection to play on ps3 (nothing to be a talking point with me), have only DVD collecting prowess, or download stuff.

I've spoken to plenty of people who have new titles that are big. You know the ones....heaps generic that joe blow think look cool? Avatar, Watchmen, Transformers, Star wars, Prometheus, 300, TDK, Star Trek, Iron Man, Inception, Matrix, Skyfall, Indiana Jones. Yada yada yada.

Well, they don't want to buy blurays but my goodness, they don't seem to have any qualms about asking to borrow some! My reply, ummmmmmm, NO!

Thank goodness there are people out there that do like quality!

[thegoat]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Fair enough, it's your choice dude. By the way, Alien is one of my faves! It looks awesome on bluray.

I will always seek the very best representation of a movie, same as my music.

Amen to that! Alien3 (special edition) is one case where the Blu-ray actually does make a tremendous difference beyond resolution. The workprint actually plays like a complete film without the jarring differences in A/V quality.

Blu-ray is always preferable, of course, but my point is that people have budgets, and there's a lot more to a movie than home video A/V specs. Just try no to be dismissive of their priorities (i.e. "true fans do this").

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by thegoat

Amen to that! Alien3 (special edition) is one case where the Blu-ray actually does make a tremendous difference beyond resolution. The workprint actually plays like a complete film without the jarring differences in A/V quality.

Blu-ray is always preferable, of course, but my point is that people have budgets, and there's a lot more to a movie than home video A/V specs. Just try no to be dismissive of their priorities (i.e. "true fans do this").

Aliens also benefits hugely. The grain is a mess on the DVD, on Bluray it is handled much better and the picture is more organic.

It's not being dismissive of budgets, people can afford what they can afford. But let's call a spade a spade and not try to justify reasons why it is acceptable to watch a DVD when a bluray is available. If people can't afford it then they should just come out with the truth rather than making up false reasons such as 'no difference in quality' or 'it's the story that counts' (speaking in general not quoting anyone) We all know it's a lesser experience watching a muddy, soft picture compared to bluray.