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

[Josh B]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Why? People who are happy with dvd are irrelevant in a forum that celebrates the quality that is bluray. If they are happy with SD why would they join bluray.com. It baffles me.

Is that meant to be ironic, or are you really baffled as to why someone would join a Blu-ray forum which makes money from linking directly to DVD, as well as BD; a forum with an entire section dedicated to music; a section set aside for off topic nonsense etc. This baffles you?

Maybe I'm not understanding your point. Did you mean to say those folks who are happy with SD are irrelevant in a thread that celebrates the quality of BD? Is that what you meant to say?

[thegoat]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

If they don't care, they are not true Blu-ray fans and are irrelevant to a bluray forum. Any true HD technology fan would want the best quality when available to enhance the experience.

Fixed. Pretty sure a film fan can enjoy a story on a dirty old film reel or a DVD as well

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by thegoat

Fixed. Pretty sure a film fan can enjoy a story on a dirty old film reel or a DVD as well

Of course they can enjoy it. I can still enjoy The dark knight on dvd. Would I want to when I have bluray? Nope.

[Tok]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Of course they can enjoy it. I can still enjoy The dark knight on dvd. Would I want to when I have bluray? Nope.

Whoa! Good thing I retread that. I skimmed it as
Would I want to have it on Bluray? Nope.

[scorpiontail60]

This thread was really more about "why are DVDs still forced into Blu-ray releases?," not "why are DVDs still around?"

I know there's still a lot of peasants out there, but why is their peasantry forced upon the rest of us?

It's like wanting to buy a nice package of steaks but you're forced to have some ramen noodles bundled in alongside them.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by scorpiontail60

This thread was really more about "why are DVDs still forced into Blu-ray releases?," not "why are DVDs still around?"

I know there's still a lot of peasants out there, but why is their peasantry forced upon the rest of us?

It's like wanting to buy a nice package of steaks but you're forced to have some ramen noodles bundled in alongside them.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by scorpiontail60

I know there's still a lot of peasants out there, but why is their peasantry forced upon the rest of us?

It's really not.

Compared to other previous generations of home video and other forms of recreational spending Blu-ray prices are ridiculously low. Might BD prices be even lower without those bundled noodles? Perhaps but I seriously doubt it. In fact, one could make a credible case that BD prices might be higher these days had that cancerous growth dropped off years ago.

Nobody is being 'forced' to keep the DVD copies.

You don't want DVDs on your shelves?

Don't put DVDs on your shelves.

Pretty simple stuff really.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I suppose stick a HD label on something and the masses are easily fooled!

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I don't buy the distance to screen stuff. Just my opinion though. I'm convinced I could see the difference on a 4K 50 inch screen.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by scorpiontail60

This thread was really more about "why are DVDs still forced into Blu-ray releases?," not "why are DVDs still around?"

I know there's still a lot of peasants out there, but why is their peasantry forced upon the rest of us?

It's like wanting to buy a nice package of steaks but you're forced to have some ramen noodles bundled in alongside them.

I don't see the issue. On average we aren't paying more for a release that has a DVD in the pack than one that doesn't. There was a whole other thread recently on this topic in which the concept that we are paying more on average for packs with DVDs than ones without them was thoroughly debunked.

The vast majority of the time, the inclusion of a DVD doesn't even result in extra room taken up on your shelf since most 1, 2, and (in the case of Viva Elite) 3 disc cases are the same height, width, and depth. It's only on rare occasion that it results in a thicker Blu-Ray case. That mostly happened with a few Disney releases (and perhaps a few others) back when they put their digital copies on a separate disc, and a combo pack would include Two Blu-Rays (one for the movie, one for extra features), a DVD copy, and a digital copy disc. Now that they've stopped including digital copy discs, this is mostly no longer an issue.

So, there just happens to be an extra disc in the package that perhaps you won't use. Oh no, boo-hoo, cry me a river.

If it bothers you THAT much, take the extra DVD disc and sell it, give it away, or throw it away. I'm sure there are some not-so-well-off people out there who would be perfectly happy with them.

First world problems, indeed. Why don't we start complaining about those inconvenient tags that we have to remove from close when we buy them? "Ugh, they are SO annoying and make my life SO much more difficult!"

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

I don't see the issue. On average we aren't paying more for a release that has a DVD in the pack than one that doesn't. There was a whole other thread recently on this topic in which the concept that we are paying more on average for packs with DVDs than ones without them was thoroughly debunked.

The vast majority of the time, the inclusion of a DVD doesn't even result in extra room taken up on your shelf since most 1, 2, and (in the case of Viva Elite) 3 disc cases are the same height, width, and depth. It's only on rare occasion that it results in a thicker Blu-Ray case. That mostly happened with a few Disney releases (and perhaps a few others) back when they put their digital copies on a separate disc, and a combo pack would include Two Blu-Rays (one for the movie, one for extra features), a DVD copy, and a digital copy disc. Now that they've stopped including digital copy discs, this is mostly no longer an issue.

So, there just happens to be an extra disc in the package that perhaps you won't use. Oh no, boo-hoo, cry me a river.

If it bothers you THAT much, take the extra DVD disc and sell it, give it away, or throw it away. I'm sure there are some not-so-well-off people out there who would be perfectly happy with them.

First world problems, indeed. Why don't we start complaining about those inconvenient tags that we have to remove from close when we buy them? "Ugh, they are SO annoying and make my life SO much more difficult!"

You make a fair point but we are a funny bunch us collectors don't you agree? A bluray case with a dvd taken out is incomplete! I don't have an issue with it but I get why some do.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by octagon

What a fine retort. (ironic smiley)

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by nagysaudio

DVDs are still around for one reason and one reason only. The world is full of cheap people. Just take a look around here. Thread after thread, post after post filled with stories of how someone called Amazon's customer service and demanded to price match Wal Mart in order to save 4 pennies. What do you expect?

It's not just about the cheap people. Some people are really hurting. Real wages for the middle class haven't risen in 30 years. You can't survive on minimum wage. Many people, especially unskilled people, are out of work. For those people, DVD provides incredible entertainment at very low cost. Back catalog sells for as low as $3 - $4. That's incredible.

But beyond the cost issue, many people simply don't give a crap about PQ or SQ. For them, if they just "see" the movie, that's all they want and need. If you're using TV speakers, it really doesn't matter if the sound is 7.1 Dolby True-HD or DTS HD Master Audio.

So far this year in the U.S., through 3/22, BD has a 32.1% dollar share of physical media and only a 21.7% unit share. So in terms of units, 78.3% of physical units are still DVDs. So, except for people like us, who really appreciate the quality that a BD can bring when played back on a quality TV and through a quality multi-channel sound system, most people simply don't give a crap.

This should not be a surprise. Look at the movie business in the 1950s when TV really began massive penetration. People were happier staying home, watching a fuzzy black and white picture on maybe a 16" screen with mono sound (although generally high quality sound if the TV was a console) than going to a movie theatre at a time before multiplexes when many movie theaters were still movie palaces and at a time when roadshow presentations were a big deal. Thousands of theaters closed although it wasn't all because of TV: the reality is that after the peak year of 1946, movie admissions dropped dramatically even before TV began to have massive penetration and it dropped in places that had no TV.

People eat crappy chain fast food instead of buying from fine restaurants that hand-craft the food. They buy awful clothes from national chains. If they listen to music, chances are it's crap. Quality is not a factor in most people's lives. So DVD lives on and as long as it's still almost 68% of the dollars, it's going to continue to live on.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by scorpiontail60

This thread was really more about "why are DVDs still forced into Blu-ray releases?," not "why are DVDs still around?"

I know there's still a lot of peasants out there, but why is their peasantry forced upon the rest of us?

It's like wanting to buy a nice package of steaks but you're forced to have some ramen noodles bundled in alongside them.

It's really very simple.
Use Case #1: BD still has a relatively low adoption rate. So you have a consumer who is thinking about buying a BD player. But even though many are now well under $100, they're not ready to buy. But they don't want to invest further in DVD titles. The BD/DVD combo package makes it an easy decision. They get the DVD for use now and the BD for use when they finally buy the player. The combo packs keep people from deferring purchasing decisions.

Use Case #2: Consumer had a BD player and wants the BD. But it's a movie his kids also want to watch, but they want to watch in their rooms and they only have a DVD player. Or they want to watch in the backseat of the car and that only has a DVD player. So again, the combo pack serves both needs. The digital or UV copy serves a similar need.

Use Case #3: Although most movie studios still also put out a DVD-only package, eventually it's going to be single SKU (as Criterion does). Having fewer SKUs saves the entire retail chain money and results in fewer returns.

If BDs would dominate the market, the studios would stop making DVDs. But DVD is still 78% of the units.

[AnamorphicWidescreen]

This is a very interesting thread, with great responses.

It makes me think back on when I first got my Blu player in December 2012 - at the time I was halfway convinced that Blu titles would completely replace DVD at some point in the next several years, and DVD's would stop being made completely. However, 1 1/2 years later DVD's are still going strong, and there are still a huge # of movies/TV shows that aren't even close to hitting the Blu format.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

It's not just about the cheap people. Some people are really hurting. Real wages for the middle class haven't risen in 30 years. You can't survive on minimum wage. Many people, especially unskilled people, are out of work. For those people, DVD provides incredible entertainment at very low cost. Back catalog sells for as low as $3 - $4. That's incredible.

But beyond the cost issue, many people simply don't give a crap about PQ or SQ. For them, if they just "see" the movie, that's all they want and need. If you're using TV speakers, it really doesn't matter if the sound is 7.1 Dolby True-HD or DTS HD Master Audio.

So far this year in the U.S., through 3/22, BD has a 32.1% dollar share of physical media and only a 21.7% unit share. So in terms of units, 78.3% of physical units are still DVDs. So, except for people like us, who really appreciate the quality that a BD can bring when played back on a quality TV and through a quality multi-channel sound system, most people simply don't give a crap.

This should not be a surprise. Look at the movie business in the 1950s when TV really began massive penetration. People were happier staying home, watching a fuzzy black and white picture on maybe a 16" screen with mono sound (although generally high quality sound if the TV was a console) than going to a movie theatre at a time before multiplexes when many movie theaters were still movie palaces and at a time when roadshow presentations were a big deal. Thousands of theaters closed although it wasn't all because of TV: the reality is that after the peak year of 1946, movie admissions dropped dramatically even before TV began to have massive penetration and it dropped in places that had no TV.

People eat crappy chain fast food instead of buying from fine restaurants that hand-craft the food. They buy awful clothes from national chains. If they listen to music, chances are it's crap. Quality is not a factor in most people's lives. So DVD lives on and as long as it's still almost 68% of the dollars, it's going to continue to live on.

I think it's hard for us to comprehend what you mentioned when we are sitting watching the IMAX scenes in the Dark Knight/Rises. It's hard to accept most people don't feel the same way. Film is such an incredible medium that it is utterly baffling why people wouldn't want to experience it at its best. It is what it is I guess. Maybe, in the distant future4K will be something that is drip fed into the mainstream a little like HD is now by default. My parents are now watching HD channels ( they don't know they are lol) clutching at straws but in the far future who knows.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

It's not just about the cheap people. Some people are really hurting. Real wages for the middle class haven't risen in 30 years. You can't survive on minimum wage. Many people, especially unskilled people, are out of work. For those people, DVD provides incredible entertainment at very low cost. Back catalog sells for as low as $3 - $4. That's incredible.

But beyond the cost issue, many people simply don't give a crap about PQ or SQ. For them, if they just "see" the movie, that's all they want and need. If you're using TV speakers, it really doesn't matter if the sound is 7.1 Dolby True-HD or DTS HD Master Audio.

So far this year in the U.S., through 3/22, BD has a 32.1% dollar share of physical media and only a 21.7% unit share. So in terms of units, 78.3% of physical units are still DVDs. So, except for people like us, who really appreciate the quality that a BD can bring when played back on a quality TV and through a quality multi-channel sound system, most people simply don't give a crap.

This should not be a surprise. Look at the movie business in the 1950s when TV really began massive penetration. People were happier staying home, watching a fuzzy black and white picture on maybe a 16" screen with mono sound (although generally high quality sound if the TV was a console) than going to a movie theatre at a time before multiplexes when many movie theaters were still movie palaces and at a time when roadshow presentations were a big deal. Thousands of theaters closed although it wasn't all because of TV: the reality is that after the peak year of 1946, movie admissions dropped dramatically even before TV began to have massive penetration and it dropped in places that had no TV.

People eat crappy chain fast food instead of buying from fine restaurants that hand-craft the food. They buy awful clothes from national chains. If they listen to music, chances are it's crap. Quality is not a factor in most people's lives. So DVD lives on and as long as it's still almost 68% of the dollars, it's going to continue to live on.

In England, in the 50s cinemas were packed to the gill. Some people had to stand to watch the movie. That was pretty much every single week.

[ouflak]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

If they don't care, they are not true movie fans and are irrelevant to a bluray forum. Any true fan would want the best quality when available to enhance the experience.

That's not fair. Some of us are big movie fans and collectors. But we just don't need to see every pore of stubble on some guys face, or that small pimple that her make-up just couldn't quite cover up. We like good stories, plot lines, good acting. Importantly, as far as display is concerned, I think many of us movie collectors, who aren't big into the resolution stuff, like attention to detail, as opposed to being able to discern the tiniest fine point of physical detail. In my opinion, if the job has been done right in sets, props, filming and editing, you really won't care to notice the difference in resolution if it's a good movie by its nature anyway. Granted, sometimes the graphics and effects make the movie, and that's probably what it's all about anyway, and that doesn't mean it's a bad movie. I like a few such flicks myself and have some in my collection, and will have more. But I don't need the penetrating detail to enjoy most of my movies at all, even if they are available in 16k over the internet for free.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by ouflak

That's not fair. Some of us are big movie fans and collectors. But we just don't need to see every pore of stubble on some guys face, or that small pimple that her make-up just couldn't quite cover up. We like good stories, plot lines, good acting. Importantly, as far as display is concerned, I think many of us movie collectors, who aren't big into the resolution stuff, like attention to detail, as opposed to being able to discern the tiniest fine point of physical detail. In my opinion, if the job has been done right in sets, props, filming and editing, you really won't care to notice the difference in resolution if it's a good movie by its nature anyway. Granted, sometimes the graphics and effects make the movie, and that's probably what it's all about anyway, and that doesn't mean it's a bad movie. I like a few such flicks myself and have some in my collection, and will have more. But I don't need the penetrating detail to enjoy most of my movies at all, even if they are available in 16k over the internet for free.

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.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

My parents are now watching HD channels ( they don't know they are lol) clutching at straws but in the far future who knows.

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".

Originally Posted by Steedeel

In England, in the 50s cinemas were packed to the gill. Some people had to stand to watch the movie. That was pretty much every single week.

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).

[ouflak]

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.

Well Avatar isn't maybe the best example as I didn't think the film was that much more than a few cobbled together cliches, but I do get your point. Films that rely heavily on their special effects are perhaps better appreciated in higher resolutions. The Star Wars movies..., well... I have a new hope that the stories will be so strong with those movies that it won't matter what their resolution and special effects will be like, but time will tell. In any case, like I said, I've got no problem with movies that rely on whatever resolution they will be shown in to 'enhance their story' as you put it. Some of those movies are excellent. But this doesn't define a movie collector or fan. Sure some people are movie collectors strictly for the highest finest detail their system can squeeze into their eyeballs. No problem. But not needing this kind of detail doesn't make anyone less of a movie fan.