Is the Classic-Film Blu-ray Market Drawing to a Close? (1 Viewer)

[marcco00]

for myself, i am trying to be practical and make do with the dvd library i already have and spent years collecting.


i got the best home theater setup i could afford for my standard dvds, and they look great on it. i am well pleased.


at this point, although i agree that blu ray's PQ is SPECTACULAR, i would prefer to buy titles i don't have in SD rather than buy titles i already own again on blu.


a perfect example.... from amazon's dvd sale last week i got 'coal miner's daughter', 'waterloo bridge', 'david & bathsheba', and 'solomon & sheba' for just under $27 total.


all new stuff for my collection, at a good price

 

[Phoebus]

I have to confess that I prefer colour movies on blu-ray to black and white.. The improved picture quality is all well and good, but a well mastered b/w dvd isn't much different for me, when projected, from a b/w bluray. but when colour gets involved I really get to notice the added "oomph" and a HD soundtrack can really pack in some very potent mixes. Blu-ray 3D is a very attractive development which makes me yearn for a few 50s technicolor 3d movies to get released.


I'm wondering how well the 70mm style blurays have sold, particularly via word of mouth. I'm sure such movies find their audience given the correct prods in the right direction. And with Cinemascope 55 as yet unexploited by the bluray medium there is much to hope and wait for. Indeed, bluray is a veritable film-school of the history of film, with many breathtaking restorations that restore the magical craftsmanship of former eras.

But this is also a worldwide phenomena, with blu-ray software for the classics mainly driven by the USA market. Perhaps sales are sometimes hindered by zone A exclusivity, particularly where more than 40-50 year old product is concerned.

But as I've said, a b/w movie has to be very impressive to me to afford it on bluray - I often rent blus anyway and purchase based on what I liked most. I'm happy to pay the extra for good colour(s). Sounds a bit odd, I know, but colour restorations (on blu) have come to mean a lot to me, particularly when projected.

 

[GMpasqua]

People forget the DVD market is also hurting (and almost no new classic films are being issued on DVD unless a Blu-ray is released)

DVD for older films has become MOD and many people do not even know those films are out there or where to find sites that sell them (I'm sure my mom, my sisters, and many people I work with (and I work in the film /home video industry) have idea they can order from the Warner Bros Archieve or that it even exists)


Many people I know still do not have HD sets (and you can't hook up a blu-ray to a non-HD set can you?)

 

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by GMpasqua
you can't hook up a blu-ray to a non-HD set can you?)

Yes you can.

 

[Rob_Ray]

Yes, you can hook up a BluRay player to a standard TV monitor, but everything will be down-rezzed to standard definition of course. With a nice amplifier, you'll get improved uncompressed sound, however. I've done this with my setup. I don't yet have an HD set in my living room but I wanted the smilebox version of HTWWW and a few other titles that had bluray exclusives on them.


Josh and others make some very valid comments. To me, because all BluRay players play DVDs, BluRay is merely a refinement of DVD technology similar to way that later laserdisc players added digital sound capability around 1986 and in the 1990s, added Dolby Digital. Everything looks and sounds a little better on the new format and BluRay comes with some interactive functionality which means nothing to me, but basically it's just the next generation of DVD. So, just as when laserdiscs added digital sound, where I started buying discs with digital sound going forward, there's not a huge incentive to start over at square one rebuying all my classic DVDs on BluRay unless the DVD release was lacking somehow, as with How the West Was Won or The Sound of Music..


Sure, the large format event titles like The Ten Commandments, How the West was Won and The Sound of Music will make me get out my wallet, but the vast majority of my money is going to the Warner Archive for titles such as their new Vitaphone Box Set. If these were offered on BluRay, I'd buy them on BluRay. But they are not. BluRay is mainly releasing stuff I already owned. And, with a few exceptions, I don't need to buy them over again. In an ideal world, I might. But not in the real world.


But to put a positive spin on all this, it may not be a golden age for BluRay and pressed DVDs, but never in the 30 years I've been collecting have I been able to amass such an incredibly vast assortment of classic titles on digital media. When I'm debating whether or not to buy titles such as "The Conspirator" and "Princess O'Rourke" on DVD-R, to me that's a golden age for classic movie buffs.

 

[Mark Collins]

Greg yes yes you can!!! I have an HD set in the family room with bose system. Hey to anyone who wants a home theater system bose is just a name. I have it for my cd player and sound system and my friends who have different systems sound just the same. I move my none HD set to the bedroom with the converter device which we all had to buy. I have roof top antenna plus Direct TV. The converter has a green red jack hook into that. I bought the cheap wall mart special 2 years back it plays fine on my old set. I love on my downstairs tv the up convert on DVDS. Just watched the Kings Speech look fantastic glad i put out the money for it. Just ordered the Queen in HD suppose to get by end of week. That Movie should really look good.

 

[Scott Calvert]

Originally Posted by Rob_Ray

Everything looks and sounds a little better on the new format

I definitely don't agree that everything looks a little better. The vast majority of my blurays look a LOT better than DVD. Have you ever watched a DVD projected at 10 feet? Watchable yes but bluray is a quantum leap at those sizes. Even on my 60 inch in the living room blurays look a heck of a lot better than even the best dvds. I don't see how people can put up with NTSC and DVD compression and scaling artifacts and 480 resolution on these new digital displays

 

[Rob_Ray]

Originally Posted by Scott Calvert




I definitely don't agree that everything looks a little better. The vast majority of my blurays look a LOT better than DVD. Have you ever watched a DVD projected at 10 feet? Watchable yes but bluray is a quantum leap at those sizes. Even on my 60 inch in the living room blurays look a heck of a lot better than even the best dvds. I don't see how people can put up with NTSC and DVD compression and scaling artifacts and 480 resolution on these new digital displays

But that's exactly why BluRay hasn't taken off in the mass market. Most people do NOT watch their movies on 10 foot screens. Even 60" is a far cry from the norm. I have a 32" set HDTV and a 35" CRT standard screen in the living room. When I replace the living room set, it will probably be with something on the order of 46" because that's what works for the room. I'd say my situation is more the norm and that's why to the vast movie-buying public, DVD is good enough in most cases.

 

[Osato]

I really appreciate what the studios have done with older titles on HD. I've picked up North By Northwest, Wizard of Oz, A Christmas Carol, It's A Wonderful Life and pretty much anything Bond and Star Trek films / tv series.

At times I wonder if the marketing should be done a bit more like how Disney handles some of their titles, but then on the other hand if a product is not out to buy, the studio cannot make the sale today. However, it would help increase demand for that title on blu ray and hopefully that would translate to higher sales when it's issued. There's been so much saturation from the studios with DVD reissues. I think we can all agree on that. Some are warranted and others not so much.

There's so many blu ray titles that everyone seems to be waiting for. Indiana Jones, Jaws, Hitchcock films, the last 9 James Bond films, etc...

I don't think physical formats will go away anytime soon. However, I can understand the studio point of wanting products to sell also.

There are several classic blu ray titles that I'm not a huge fan of so even though they were so well done, I didn't buy them. Casablanca and Gone With The Wind to name a couple.

I would've bought Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid and The French Connection, but was put off by the transfer reviews of both films.

So I guess it really comes down to what titles they are releasing and whether I will buy older blu ray titles. I certainly am selective about the ones I do buy. If it's a favorite though it usually gets picked up right away.

Also on Disney, the Rewards coupons are a great idea and for sure have helped me pick up more titles than I would've with out the coupon. I picked up Pinocchio last week on blu ray as I read the news that it will be out of print at the end of April and Target had it on sale. So there's another buying factor in some ways too.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

I sure hope we continue to get a steady stream of (at least the more important) classics coming in good quality, reasonably affordable releases on Blu. For myself, I find the current pace to be good enough for the most part (although I'd like to see better quality transfers in some instances), and I'm one of those who did not already build up a sizeable collection of classics on DVD, but am putting a bit more of my film collecting resources toward that on Blu these days even though I have a young family w/ kids -- and maybe my kids will learn/grow to appreciate the classics as well. Just don't force me to choose those super premium priced, big box o' junk versions nor go w/ poorly transfered titles though -- and I'd be willing to pay a little more for quality extras, especially on the more important classics, as well.


I greatly appreciate both quality and variety (along w/ affordability) in my collection, and that's what I shoot for as my BD collection approaches the 640-title mark (w/ ~155 from 1990-and-earlier and ~85 from 1980-and-earlier), which has grown waaaay larger than I originally expected when I took the plunge back in late-2008.


_Man_

 

[GMpasqua]

Quote: "Why is a Bluray upgrade of From Here to Eternity that was supervised by Sony's Grover Crisp in '09 still without a firm release date (sometime in early '12 is the best guess so far)?"



Wasn't that the expensive part?



Why are they holding up a release - (if they don't think it will sell why did the do the transfer to begin with?)


The studios say getting the film ready for blu-ray is the expensive part - so at this point why don't they just release it?

 

[Bob Cashill]

"I think the original article is a little too "the sky is falling" for my taste."--Well, that's Hollywood Elsewhere for you, abandon all hope all ye who post there. I do, and did, and mentioned that Blu-ray (which I love, but only got into at Christmas) is the laserdisc of DVD, and added that for the "Movie Catholics" (sigh) he describes the real action is in MODs, hauling up buried treasure (well, buried eccentricities) every week or so. BD as a niche is OK by me--I still own 200 or so LDs, and still have a working player to watch them on.

All these discussions about BD "wants" are exact replicas of DVD discussions 10 or so years ago, with the exact same titles mentioned. Consumers satisfied with those DVDs who don't want the new new thing (and I was a BD holdout a lot longer than I was for LD and BD) aren't going to break down and go Blu because they're available.

 

[Cinescott]

Originally Posted by MatthewA




I have been advocating this for years. But it's going to take a lot to make people who invested huge sums of money in single season sets want to upgrade. Sure, The Twilight Zone and Star Trek get major upgrades from their DVD counterparts, but would fans of All in the Family or The Golden Girls want to plunk down any more cash than they have already? I would, but only if they correct the problems with the DVDs and add extras of substance. If they don't dump the same MPEG-2 encodes onto Blu-Ray disc and go back to the 2", 1", or Betacam originals (someone on Steve Hoffman's forums said The Golden Girls was shot on Betacam, so finding a working deck shouldn't be hard), they should be superior in that respect. All in the Family had problematic source material to begin with and the compression on the DVDs made it worse. The last disc of the first season even tried to cram five episodes on a single-layer disc! Ron Epstein himself called it one of the worst-looking DVDs he had seen. It will probably need major restoration work just to look passable, never mind good.


But I'm not The Average Consumer. Will T.A. Consumer spend another $30 just to save a foot of shelf space?

My initial investment in SD TV series on DVD was not high. For All in the Family I paid between $15/$20 per season (for 5 seasons), spread out over a long period of time. Most seasons are 4 or 5 DVDs each. So why couldn't an SD transfer be done onto Blu-ray on one disc/season for the same or lower cost? Even if the average bit rate were upped considerably from the existing DVDs, an entire season of AITF could easily fit on one disc. The cost to the studio would be lower (1 disc instead of 5), their profit would be higher if sold at the same $20 price point, and the consumer should be happier given the added shelf space and convenience. By all means, add new features. It may be necessary to sell them in larger quantities anyways (I don't pretend to be the 'average' video consumer). However, to not take advantage of a medium's capabilities through simple ignorance makes no sense to me. I frankly don't need major restorative work on AITF to be satisfied. A fraction better with Blu-ray compression would be nice, but here's a studio's dream come true: a video enthusiasts plea to not spend huge sums of money, but rather give me something that's equivalent to the videotaped masters in a small, compact format. Is a foot of shelf space worth the money? To me, absolutely.


I recall one of the big selling points of Blu-ray years ago was its enormous storage potential and not just for high bit rate, high definition content. To me, it seems as if the major hurdle involved with making SD Blu-ray content a reality is perception, not technology. It can certainly work better than DVD, but would the buying public balk?

Let's see:


1) Same cost

2) Better resolution (simple higher bit rate)

3) Compact (fewer discs)

4) Better navigation features (menus on-the-fly, etc.)


For the studios:


1) Lower manufacturing cost

2) Higher per unit profit (can these things really cost more than $1 ea. to manufacture in quantity?)

3) Cheaper to ship and display



Maybe the average buying public is too 'ignorant' or 'confused' to buy into this particular advantage of Blu-ray. I really don't know how to respond to that other than to say that over time, given the choice, I believe consumers can adapt and be educated regarding why this is better. Don't eliminate the DVD option obviously, but give the consumer a choice. Do you want 5 discs or 1? Same price. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....................................Couldn't this help the Blu-ray format in general gain in popularity?

 

[Adam_S]

that's why I think Bluray should be an option for MOD TV series, not a B&M option. You'd still have a MOD option for DVDs also available, but that would be multiple discs, presumably with a lot of materials and QC overhead per unit; studios can still charge nearly as much for a single bluray disc of SD TV shows (they'd probably offer a slight discount), probably make more profit per unit and the consumer gets a higher quality product which is also more convenient (one disc).

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by Cinescott



Also, one pet peeve of mine is that studios refuse to take advantage of the SD advantages of Blu-ray as a simple space-saving measure. How about classic TV seasons or miniseries in SD transfered to ONE disc? That would be a huge buying incentive for me! There isn't much of a benefit to upgrade shows shot in SD to HD, so why not put them on Blu-ray in SD? I have a couple of TV series on DVD that take up huge amounts of shelf space. I'd gladly re-buy this content for the space savings Blu-ray could bring. One of the advantages DVD had over VHS was that it is compact. BR is more compact than DVD, but most don't even know it! A BD has 50 GB of space, use it! I know the arguments about putting SD on a hi-def format causing confusion, etc. Just put a freaking sticker on the thing in bold that says this disc contains SD content!

The somewhat limited production capacity, not to mention the expense of blu-ray makes this pretty much a non starter. I read an article about 3 months ago that there will likely be titles delayed this spring because there isn’t enough capacity to produce the volume that the studios are asking for. They aren’t going to waste that limited resource with non-HD material.


Doug

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by benbess

I don't want to disagree with you Cinescott, but I think I do. As RobertR says, most classic shows shot on high def 35mm will blow you away on blu--witness TZ and Star Trek. And I think the format should keep its "it'll blow you away with the picture quality!" halo.


What's interesting is that HD masters exist for shows like the Andy Griffith Show, Hawaii 5-0 and Mission Impossible. I don't know if they'll ever get a blu release, but you can watch them on hd at netflix streaming now. It's not nearly as good as a blu-ray, but it's something more than a dvd...

Except for that period between about 1988 and 2005 where most TV shows were shot on film, but edited on 480 video. All of these shows would have to be completely re scanned and re edited from scratch to take advantage of HD.


Doug

 

[Cinescott]

Originally Posted by Douglas Monce

The somewhat limited production capacity, not to mention the expense of blu-ray makes this pretty much a non starter. I read an article about 3 months ago that there will likely be titles delayed this spring because there isn’t enough capacity to produce the volume that the studios are asking for. They aren’t going to waste that limited resource with non-HD material.


Doug

If this is true, it must bode well for the future of Blu-ray. If production and duplication vendors can't keep up with orders, why are so many (studios, market analysts) apparently disappointed by sales numbers?


Regarding expense, I cannot believe that with the sales pricing points on Blu ray that studios and distributors aren't making money. Duplicating tens or even hundreds of thousands of discs must bring the cost per unit down substantially. If they sell each unit at a $20+ pricing point, that represents enormous profit. I know there are distribution, marketing, and transportation costs as well as everything else involved with getting the finished disc in your hands, but if they can't do it with a 2,000% margin over the net cost, I'll do it.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by benbess

Ethan: I'm afraid you make some good points.


And yet even right away Criterion seems to be able to sell some pretty obscure titles by doing them right.


It's amazing to me that right now Blow Out, a box office failure, is the top selling blu-ray at amazon. Even more amazing is that The Sweet Smell of Success, a black and white box office bomb from 1957, is at number 11!!


Criterion is making back their investments in these titles almost right away, it looks like, as well as handing over nice checks to the studios.....

Yes but how long can Criterion keep selling their product at 50% off and stay in business. Criterion titles have historically been more expensive than studio released titles because they are a small company releasing niche titles that sell in small numbers. 50% off might be a good way to jump start their brand in the blu-ray market, but I can't see it lasting very long.


Doug

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by GMpasqua

How many movies have you downloaded?

How do you stored them?

Have you ever accidentally deleted any?

What if your computer crashes are they backed up?


just wondering since i have not even consisdered downloading

Honestly I don't think downloads really have much of a future. Frankly the studios would rather you didn't have a copy of the movie at all, even if that copy is just data. Streaming is likely where everything is going.


Doug

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by JoHud

I'm not convinced that Blu-ray's best days are behind us. Especially in the last couple of years, there appears to be a stronger push to increase Blu-ray marketshare. Considering that far fewer home video consumers own Blu-ray players compared to DVD players, it is still seen as a potentially growing market in the long-term. When it comes to classics, the studios are experimenting with different ways of packaging and selling them. Huge collector boxes have been introduced, but it seems that only a select few blockbusters are worthy of that treatment. There has been the DVD/Blu Combo tactic to get more money out of the Blu, which has been used to great success by Disney in particular. Digibooks seem to be the real winner so far, with most of the studios adopting the Digibook in order to sell their Blurays at premium price, compared to average Blu-ray casings that are now pretty much comparable to average DVD prices nowadays.


But its interesting to note that, so far, there has been no notable DVD phase-out now that we are in 2011. Sure, fewer new DVD releases have been released in the last few years, but Blu-ray hasn't really picked up the slack much in comparison, and DVD-only releases still are steadily released (mostly deep catalogue). Like Rob_Ray mentioned earlier, having a movie available on a quality DVD release is usually enough to satisfy general consumer demand for a lesser known title. Even Criterion still occasionally has DVD-only releases.

But the problem is I don't see many people buying blu-ray players because of blu-ray. They are buying them because they have netflix built in.


Doug