Disc costs: CE3K vs Blade Runner $ (reply to dialog_gvf)

[dialog_gvf]

EDIT: I moved some posts out of paidgeek's thread to here, where we can discuss to our heats content.

Originally Posted by Teazle

Here in Toronto I see CETK for $45 and $50. Blade Runner is $35-$37.

I can't fanthom why Blade Runner was so cheap. It's INSANELY cheap for a five RESTORED movies disc set of an important film. Crazy. Warner should be slapped upside the head for devaluing their own efforts.

So, in some ways, it's like Toshiba and HD DVD. Close Encounters was not pricey, Blade Runner was rediculously cheap.

There HAS to be margins for restoring classic films for Blu-ray or it won't happen much. That would be a tragedy. If film fans are willing to pay a little more for the past classics, then the financial incentive to restore them will be there.

Gary

[ckenisell]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

Warner should be slapped upside the head for devaluing their own efforts.

Or maybe they should be rewarded for having the common sense to not price their product out of the market and for recognizing that, although there are several different versions, it's still only one movie.

[Cruyff14]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

There HAS to be margins for restoring classic films for Blu-ray or it won't happen much. That would be a tragedy. If film fans are willing to pay a little more for the past classics, then the financial incentive to restore them will be there.

Gary

Studios do not need BD to compensate for their restoration costs. In fact they have been restoring films and creating 2k and 4k HD masters from those restorations long before BD was on the market. For SD releases they simply downconvert the HD master and the SD sales will recoup their restoration costs.

It's a chicken and egg situation at the moment. Classics don't sell because a large part of the current BD ownership is not interested in them. The people that are interested in classic movies on the other hand, do not buy into BD because there is not enough content available that interests them.

[JamesN]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

Honestly, when people start showing some love of classic titles.Gary

Amen.

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

Some of the worst selling HD DVD were Casablanca, Forbidden Planet, and The Adventures of Robin Hood.
Gary

Do you know how hard it was for me to resist buying into HD-DVD when they had titles like these? I'll be first in line for these on Blu!

[jkcheng122]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

I can't fanthom why Blade Runner was so cheap. It's INSANELY cheap for a five RESTORED movies disc set of an important film. Crazy. Warner should be slapped upside the head for devaluing their own efforts.

So, in some ways, it's like Toshiba and HD DVD. Close Encounters was not pricey, Blade Runner was rediculously cheap.

There HAS to be margins for restoring classic films for Blu-ray or it won't happen much. That would be a tragedy. If film fans are willing to pay a little more for the past classics, then the financial incentive to restore them will be there.

Gary

as long as Warner is making money per disc sold, there's nothing wrong with that. it'd certainly help sell more units.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Cruyff14

Studios do not need BD to compensate for their restoration costs. In fact they have been restoring films and creating 2k and 4k HD masters from those restorations long before BD was on the market. For SD releases they simply downconvert the HD master and the SD sales will recoup their restoration costs.

There is a market for SD. But, whether at this point it is sufficient for justifying a restoration effort is debatable.

HD masters have been being done for a long time. But, they were done using CRT monitors that hid flaws that are apparent on discrete pixel displays. Technicolor has told Universal "sorry, not good enough" for a lot of Universal's HD masters when approached about doing Blu encodings.

The bar has been raised VERY high, and it is expensive to reach it.

Gary

[pellucidity]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

HD masters have been being done for a long time. But, they were done using CRT monitors that hid flaws that are apparent on discrete pixel displays. Technicolor has told Universal "sorry, not good enough" for a lot of Universal's HD masters when approached about doing Blu encodings.

I know this is paid's thread, but can you say any more about this? I've heard about problems with Uni's masters but this sounds on the surface like the tail wagging the dog. Just curious how this part of the business works.

[Teazle]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

There HAS to be margins for restoring classic films for Blu-ray or it won't happen much. That would be a tragedy. If film fans are willing to pay a little more for the past classics, then the financial incentive to restore them will be there.

Not quite. There has to be _profit_ in order for classic film restoration to continue. If sales are zero, margins can be infinite and this won't help restoration a bit. Isn't it possible that Warner struck a better compromise between margin and volume with Blade Runner than did Sony with CE3K?

EDIT: More of my blather off Paid's thread here: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...599#post667599

[Teazle]

A few other things about this Blade Runner vs Close Encounters price issue (see this post --

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=652

-- and following) and whether WB is devaluing the market for classic films on Blu -- which ultimately would threaten the viability of restoration projects.

1) $35 does seem to be too cheap for five discs, but as someone pointed out, it’s still one movie, the rest are extras, alternate versions etc. Extras don’t have as much added value for the consumer due to limited replay value (when they are watched at all). The main movie will be viewed several, perhaps dozens of times in the life of the disc. How many times can the consumer sit through the outtakes and director’s commentary?

2) Could it be that WB is taking the ‘longer view’ than Sony here? $45 and $50 is a shock to the prospective new Blu adopter. The $35 tag for Blade Runner might reflect a different pricing strategy for premium catalogue titles, where they go in a bit lower (to encourage faster uptake of Blu) but are much much more hesitant to offer reductions later on.

3) Home video is a competitive business. Maybe Warner Bros. is simply more eager for my money than Sony. In fact, maybe Sony is more eager for my money than Sony, to the extent that I’ve been buying their other restored (I think??) catalogue titles such as Life of Brian and 20M Miles at $29 and Dracula at $33, in preference to CE3K which I’d love to own but is farther down on my list due to cost.

[Cruyff14]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

There is a market for SD. But, whether at this point it is sufficient for justifying a restoration effort is debatable.

It must be because the studios are doing it. Just look at the back cover of some of your DVDs of classic movies and I'll bet you that a lot of them will say "digitally restored" and "remastered in HD" or something similar.

HD masters have been being done for a long time. But, they were done using CRT monitors that hid flaws that are apparent on discrete pixel displays. Technicolor has told Universal "sorry, not good enough" for a lot of Universal's HD masters when approached about doing Blu encodings.

That may be true for a lot of older HD masters (pre 2000) but not for recent ones. Sony for instance recently released special edition DVDs of Taxi Driver, Guess Who's Coming To Dinner and Midnight Express and all were made from new HD masters. Same story with for instance the recent special editions of MGM's The Apartment and 12 Angry Men. And there are loads more.
I don't believe for one minute that these recent HD masters are not good enough for BD.

[Cruyff14]

The studios are making their money (and recouping the restoration and remastering costs) through the sales of the SD releases of the titles you mentioned. These titles would have been restored even if BD had never existed. BD sales are pathetic at the moment when compared to SD, even for modern blockbusters, but since the studios still have SD they are doing just fine.

[Blu As Hell]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

I can't fanthom why Blade Runner was so cheap. It's INSANELY cheap for a five RESTORED movies disc set of an important film.

I'm with you on that one, not that I'm complaining, but I couldn't figure out for the life of me why a movie set with five discs is 30 dollars?

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Teazle

1) $35 does seem to be too cheap for five discs, but as someone pointed out, it’s still one movie

It had to be mastered and authored for five discs. Every single title set is one movie. Yet, if they don't include extras people whine.

Originally Posted by Teazle

2) Could it be that WB is taking the ‘longer view’ than Sony here? $45 and $50 is a shock to the prospective new Blu adopter. The $35 tag for Blade Runner might reflect a different pricing strategy for premium catalogue titles, where they go in a bit lower (to encourage faster uptake of Blu) but are much much more hesitant to offer reductions later on.

Could be. It seems Warner is "everyday low prices" while Sony has been about sales. It does seem to be different philosophies.

Originally Posted by Teazle

3) Home video is a competitive business. Maybe Warner Bros. is simply more eager for my money than Sony. In fact, maybe Sony is more eager for my money than Sony, to the extent that I’ve been buying their other restored (I think??) catalogue titles such as Life of Brian and 20M Miles at $29 and Dracula at $33, in preference to CE3K which I’d love to own but is farther down on my list due to cost.

Remember revenue = price * sales. Who made more revenue and profit? Probably Warner. But, we can't know for sure without knowing their costs.

Paidgeek has said the sales of CE3K were disappointing. Perhaps the pricing is the issue. But, it's a shame. Because I'm sure if people embraced that pricing for such titles, we'd get a heck of a lot more of them.

People seem to be demand everything: Ultra high quality (slamned if it isn't great PQ/AQ), lots of extras (slamned if it missing extras), cheap price (slamned if it is more dear than regular movie releases), and released last Thursday ("why haven't you announced Lawrence of Arabia yet?!!").

I'm asking people to consider the effort involved to get it passed mere TV HD/DVD mastering levels, and get it to Blu-ray levels.

Gary

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Cruyff14

The studios are making their money (and recouping the restoration and remastering costs) through the sales of the SD releases of the titles you mentioned. These titles would have been restored even if BD had never existed. BD sales are pathetic at the moment when compared to SD, even for modern blockbusters, but since the studios still have SD they are doing just fine.

Then they only need to expend effort to get it to look great on SD or for HDTV.

The extra considerable effort in restoration, telecine and mastering needed to get it to look acceptable on Blu-ray is significant. And if the unit sales aren't there (as you say), then the profit margins need to be to encourage the endeavour.

Catalog already suffers from lacking the excitement of a new release. But older titles suffer from many young people who are getting into Blu-ray not knowing about the film.

In many cases what are we talking about here? $5 - $10 more? Is that really outrageous if it encourages the classics to get released? Or would people prefer to wait for more general adoption and get it cheap?

Gary

[DaViD Boulet]

I don't believe for one minute that these recent HD masters are not good enough for BD.

Each studio has it's own policy, QC process, and equipment. You can't assume that just because Sony does a decent HD transfer that Universal will inevitably do the same, for instance.

[WickyWoo]

I'm with you on that one, not that I'm complaining, but I couldn't figure out for the life of me why a movie set with five discs is 30 dollars?

Because it's only actually one movie, one compression, and only 3 of the discs are actually Blu-rays. Media is trival, the whole package costs WB around $6-7 to manufacture. To boot, Blade Runner hit the black 20 years ago, and ever since then has just been a gravy train.

It's not the disc count, it's what's on them that matters

[Brandon B]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

People seem to be demand everything: Ultra high quality (slamned if it isn't great PQ/AQ), lots of extras (slamned if it missing extras), cheap price (slamned if it is more dear than regular movie releases), and released last Thursday ("why haven't you announced Lawrence of Arabia yet?!!").

For me, the unforgivable omission from that list would be quality. I think the studios can live with the abusive internet posting on the other fronts, but a poor quality release will cost them more sales than any of the others, IMO.

Superbit DVDs sold reasonably well in spite of many of them falling short in those other categories. At least I assume they did. Of course, I am one of the odd few who think $15-20 for a DVD was a perfectly reasonable price for the entertainment value.

BB

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Cruyff14

I don't believe for one minute that these recent HD masters are not good enough for BD.

I didn't say that. I said that to be good enough for BD requires effort and expense.

You think the masters for the original releases of Full Metal Jacket (bobbed 1080i master) and The Fifth Element (mastered with CRT monitor) were adequate? Why not?

Gary

[Cruyff14]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

Then they only need to expend effort to get it to look great on SD or for HDTV.

The extra considerable effort in restoration, telecine and mastering needed to get it to look acceptable on Blu-ray is significant.

You make it out as if studios can not create one HD master and use it for several purposes That's simply not true. If they create a HD master that is suitable for BD they can and will use that same master for the SD release (and for HDTV and normal TV and VHS if it still existed).

And if the unit sales aren't there (as you say), then the profit margins need to be to encourage the endeavour.

I would not mind paying $50 for a barebones release myself but raising prices is not the answer. The market needs to grow beyond the current demographic. In order to do that, studios need to get content out there that interests people who are into classic movies so that they are going to buy a BD player in the first place. At the moment there's not much content out there for that target group so why should they buy into BD?

[Cruyff14]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

I didn't say that. I said that to be good enough for BD requires effort and expense.

Do you really believe that studios currently create a seperate HD master for a SD release and then create another for the BD release? Or could it be that they create one HD master that serves all purposes?