As an Amazon associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Thanks for your support!                               
×

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals


Best Blu-ray Movie Deals, See All the Deals »
Top deals | New deals  
 All countries United States United Kingdom Canada Germany France Spain Italy Australia Netherlands Japan Mexico
Alfred Hitchcock: The Ultimate Collection 4K (Blu-ray)
$124.99
3 hrs ago
Superman I-IV 5-Film Collection 4K (Blu-ray)
$74.99
1 day ago
How to Train Your Dragon 4K (Blu-ray)
$39.95
3 hrs ago
The Rage: Carrie 2 4K (Blu-ray)
$28.99
3 hrs ago
A Confucian Confusion / Mahjong: Two Films by Edward Yang (Blu-ray)
$36.69
1 hr ago
Karate Kid: Legends 4K (Blu-ray)
$24.97
6 hrs ago
The Howling 4K (Blu-ray)
$35.99
1 day ago
Back to the Future Part III 4K (Blu-ray)
$24.99
 
Superman 4K (Blu-ray)
$29.95
 
Back to the Future: The Ultimate Trilogy 4K (Blu-ray)
$44.99
 
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Trilogy 4K (Blu-ray)
$70.00
 
Dan Curtis' Classic Monsters (Blu-ray)
$29.99
 
What's your next favorite movie?
Join our movie community to find out


Image from: Life of Pi (2012)

Go Back   Blu-ray Forum > Blu-ray > Blu-ray Technology and Future Technology
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-12-2007, 07:03 AM   #1
richard lichtenfelt richard lichtenfelt is offline
Power Member
 
richard lichtenfelt's Avatar
 
Jul 2007
I'm not drunk, I'm just tired cause I been up all night drinking.
3
Default Replication costs actually favor Blu-ray

Hd dvd hardcore supporters always throw the costs in your face, but the 5 disc version of Blade Runner at amazon.com costs the same on both formats.
Here is a link that actually shows costs of replication: http://wesleytech.com/blu-ray-vs-hd-...zed-again/113/
Notice on the first box chart that the per disc cost of the double layer hd dvd (30gb) which is closer in size to the single layer blu-ray (25gb) the cost is the same. If you scroll further down the page you will see that for a batch of 5,000 of these discs the hd dvd costs $9,500 while the blu-ray discs cost less at $9,000.
It is obvious from these figures that if hd dvd starts putting movies on their triple layer 51gb disc that they will indeed cost more than the double layer 50gb blu-ray discs since the cost is more determined by the layer than the format. With blu-rays at 25gb per layer and hd dvds at 15gb per layer the argument about blu-ray replication being more expensive is actually a reversal of the truth.

Last edited by richard lichtenfelt; 10-12-2007 at 07:15 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2007, 07:12 AM   #2
MOONPHASE MOONPHASE is offline
Blu-ray Duke
 
MOONPHASE's Avatar
 
Jun 2007
California
8
520
820
18
29
Default

dont you mean $95 and $90?
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2007, 07:15 AM   #3
richard lichtenfelt richard lichtenfelt is offline
Power Member
 
richard lichtenfelt's Avatar
 
Jul 2007
I'm not drunk, I'm just tired cause I been up all night drinking.
3
Default

No that figure is for a batch of 5,000 discs.
Probably those costs are even less for big releases as the prices tend to drop further with increased quantity.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2007, 08:07 AM   #4
Manco Manco is offline
Special Member
 
Manco's Avatar
 
Jun 2007
Tucumcari
Send a message via MSN to Manco
Default

Richard... thank you for posting this fascinating and educating article. This should dispell a lot of myths about cost. We need to propagate this article far and wide.

The setup and run costs between BD and HD for a large studio are virtually neglibile. I've been to lunches at the Studios that cost more than the differences were talking here. A few thousand $$. Big deal. It means nothing for a film with a $30-$60 million dollar budget. Paramounts big ordeal over production costs for BD are total nonsense. Oh... they had to send some programmer on a visa to a traning class for a weekto learn BD-J. And that cost what...about $4000 with expenses give or take?!?!

This whole cost thing is total FUD!

Last edited by Manco; 10-12-2007 at 08:18 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2007, 08:39 AM   #5
richard lichtenfelt richard lichtenfelt is offline
Power Member
 
richard lichtenfelt's Avatar
 
Jul 2007
I'm not drunk, I'm just tired cause I been up all night drinking.
3
Default

Thanks Manco. Love the avatar and I can't wait for more Eastwood bds. The man is a genius of acting and directing. The Oulaw Josey Wales is one of my all time favorites.
I always suspected that the replication thing was total bs because the proponents of this theory whose comments I've seen never included any actual costs in their statements.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2007, 11:37 AM   #6
dobyblue dobyblue is online now
Super Moderator
 
dobyblue's Avatar
 
Jul 2006
Ontario, Canada
71
55
655
15
Default

That link is from February. Richard Casey in his recent interview with Josh Noyes states that the replication costs themselves were about 30% more for the Blu-ray version of Nature's Journey, but that everything else was even in terms of cost and that the 30% difference in replication was a negligible difference in the big picture.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2007, 12:10 PM   #7
richard lichtenfelt richard lichtenfelt is offline
Power Member
 
richard lichtenfelt's Avatar
 
Jul 2007
I'm not drunk, I'm just tired cause I been up all night drinking.
3
Default

I'll bet that Mr. Casey used single layer 15gb hd dvd discs and single layer 25gb blu-ray discs. 2/3s more gb for 1/3 more cost makes blu-ray cheaper by the gb.
The chart that I linked and referred to as well as the theme of my post was comparing double layer hd dvds to single layer blu discs, as 30gb is much closer to 25gb than is 15.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2007, 12:13 PM   #8
buckshot buckshot is offline
Blu-ray Guru
 
buckshot's Avatar
 
Feb 2007
san die ego
2
9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by richard lichtenfelt View Post
No that figure is for a batch of 5,000 discs.
Probably those costs are even less for big releases as the prices tend to drop further with increased quantity.

and don't forget that since BD is outselling hd 2:1 blu probably has larger runs and costs even less. I started to write an explanation of why blu ray actually costs less than hd but it was kinda long and VERY boring unless you're a buyer or planner and are familiar with APICS.

but i'm not surprised at all that hd has been shown to be full of crap AGAIN.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2007, 12:19 PM   #9
richard lichtenfelt richard lichtenfelt is offline
Power Member
 
richard lichtenfelt's Avatar
 
Jul 2007
I'm not drunk, I'm just tired cause I been up all night drinking.
3
Default

Buckshot I've never read anything from you that's been boring. You inform and make me laugh quite often.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2007, 12:44 PM   #10
buckshot buckshot is offline
Blu-ray Guru
 
buckshot's Avatar
 
Feb 2007
san die ego
2
9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by richard lichtenfelt View Post
Buckshot I've never read anything from you that's been boring. You inform and make me laugh quite often.
thank you richard (sniffle) its so nice to be loved (sniffle sniffle)

here goes a boiled down version of what I wanted to write.

blu ray sells twice as many discs as hd dvd. therefore, replication costs will be substantially lower. unless hd dvd
produces large amounts of their discs in a single run and then warehouses them. the cost then is the warehousing of the materials. inventory = money not going back into the company. plus most companies have to rent warehouse space to store said inventory which they also have to insure. if the extra discs are stored by the retailers who sell them as opposed to the companies who make the discs or the movie studios, the cost falls on the retailer who will (eventually) demand a lower wholesale price for the product that they are now having to store, insure, and track. which equals less revenue for the studios, then the production lines which all comes back to why nobody wants to be in bed with hd dvd, unless they are paid to. sorry unles they are given ''advertising consideration'' money.

that's the cliff's notes version. I started writing a long speal a few weeks ago after reading the crap people at hdd and avs were writing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2007, 01:28 PM   #11
lokus lokus is offline
Senior Member
 
lokus's Avatar
 
Jul 2007
Marlton, NJ
72
Send a message via AIM to lokus
Default

Its all about JIT (Just In Time) inventory. Considering our disc sales are higher than HD-DVD, there is a potential for their discs to be sitting in inventory which costs everyone more money because they aren't being sold. The same thing can be said about Blu-ray but at least our movies are being sold and are circulating. If the cost of producing HD-DVD was less, it will most likely cost more in the long run due to the lack of sales. Unsold discs sitting in warehouses and on store shelves will cost companies more.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2007, 02:58 PM   #12
gand41f gand41f is offline
Special Member
 
gand41f's Avatar
 
May 2007
San Jose, California
Default

Thanks Richard for posting the link.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckshot View Post
thank you richard (sniffle) its so nice to be loved (sniffle sniffle)

here goes a boiled down version of what I wanted to write.

blu ray sells twice as many discs as hd dvd. therefore, replication costs will be substantially lower. unless hd dvd
produces large amounts of their discs in a single run and then warehouses them. the cost then is the warehousing of the materials. inventory = money not going back into the company. plus most companies have to rent warehouse space to store said inventory which they also have to insure. if the extra discs are stored by the retailers who sell them as opposed to the companies who make the discs or the movie studios, the cost falls on the retailer who will (eventually) demand a lower wholesale price for the product that they are now having to store, insure, and track. which equals less revenue for the studios, then the production lines which all comes back to why nobody wants to be in bed with hd dvd, unless they are paid to. sorry unles they are given ''advertising consideration'' money.

that's the cliff's notes version. I started writing a long speal a few weeks ago after reading the crap people at hdd and avs were writing.
That's a very convincing argument Buckshot. This may be why the HD-DVD proponents always try to paint things in vague, broad brushes ("there are potentially thousands of lines that can be converted", "the replication costs are significantly lower") without ever going into specifics. I've seen several articles saying the costs are about the same, but not one that quotes significantly different prices.

And you haven't even mentioned combos yet.

With their stupid naming choice and subsequent consumer confusion, having to press combos on the first run of any new release is pretty much built into HD-DVD's cost structure. With the number of defective discs leaking out to the marketplace, yields of combos cannot be pretty.

enjoy
gandalf
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2007, 03:43 PM   #13
HeavyHitter HeavyHitter is offline
Blu-ray Baron
 
HeavyHitter's Avatar
 
Jul 2007
4
154
Default

This is good information because the 'cheaper replication' argument is at the core FUD from HD DVD supporters talking points
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2007, 03:59 PM   #14
buckshot buckshot is offline
Blu-ray Guru
 
buckshot's Avatar
 
Feb 2007
san die ego
2
9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lokus View Post
Its all about JIT (Just In Time) inventory. Considering our disc sales are higher than HD-DVD, there is a potential for their discs to be sitting in inventory which costs everyone more money because they aren't being sold. The same thing can be said about Blu-ray but at least our movies are being sold and are circulating. If the cost of producing HD-DVD was less, it will most likely cost more in the long run due to the lack of sales. Unsold discs sitting in warehouses and on store shelves will cost companies more.
ahh I see you are wise in the kung fu production arts. that's why a lot of amazon's stuff is sold through them but actually shipped from the vendor. so their inventory on hand stays as low as possible. they don't do that with their movies though.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2007, 04:37 PM   #15
WickyWoo WickyWoo is offline
Blu-ray Champion
 
May 2007
2
Default

I'd say it's definately true that the larger Blu volume makes up for any additional $$ HD-30 to BD-50

Quote:
Its all about JIT (Just In Time) inventory. Considering our disc sales are higher than HD-DVD, there is a potential for their discs to be sitting in inventory which costs everyone more money because they aren't being sold. The same thing can be said about Blu-ray but at least our movies are being sold and are circulating. If the cost of producing HD-DVD was less, it will most likely cost more in the long run due to the lack of sales. Unsold discs sitting in warehouses and on store shelves will cost companies more.
Ideally you want to turn your discs over every 90 days.
  Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Blu-ray Forum > Blu-ray > Blu-ray Technology and Future Technology

Similar Threads
thread Forum Thread Starter Replies Last Post
The Ins and Outs of Blu-ray Disc Replication and Licensing Blu-ray Technology and Future Technology Josh 8 01-27-2009 07:20 AM
Can someone please do me a favor? Lost season 3 on Blu-ray. Blu-ray Movies - North America zak88lx 2 10-06-2008 06:53 PM
!!! DVDSpot is 63-37 in Blu-Ray Favor!!!!one1 General Chat JJ 1 01-03-2008 07:47 PM
Sony DADC ramps up Blu-ray replication - 2.5M BD50s shipped to date. Blu-ray Technology and Future Technology phloyd 7 06-06-2007 04:18 AM
Blu-ray vs HD DVD Replication Costs Revealed Blu-ray Technology and Future Technology iceman 24 02-15-2007 01:42 PM



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:13 PM.