Quadruple dipping ahead/

I for one am not arguing that the market for classic film on DVD is exhausted. Amongst other things, I'm saying that there are significant macro/market forces at work that are bigger than any one genre of film. It is a fact that we are closer to the end than the beginning of the most robust phase of the SD DVD product cycle. That doesn't mean that the format may not very well continue to be a viable economic force--it depends upon a variety of hi def DVD factors, some of which we don't have hard information on yet like unit price and copy protection matters. But having said that, the product cycle issue has implications for any film--regardless of genre--not yet released on SD DVD.

And say what you will about the Spielberg/Lucas generation, or the post-Spielberg Bruckheimer generation, those guys and their auds fundamentally changed Hollywood and it economics (for the worse, I'm sure many would argue). It's problematic to dichotomize classic film from the popular: I'm not the only guy out there who enjoys both Fassbinder and Michael Bay. But I also understand that the latter, not the former, is largely responsible for driving the home video industry. The release or absence of Wild Strawberries on DVD is not a watershed event for the format, regardless of whatever feelings I may have about the movie.


Um, because they will look and sound better.

And even--some would argue, especially--older pictures' home video presentation can benefit from higher resolution.

-p

So very true. The DVD format that is almost 9 years old now has barely managed to scratch the surface of the sheer wealth of older classic titles languishing in the vaults of the various studios. I think the regular DVD format (if it continues to be supported in the future) needs at least another 10 years (maybe even more) before a majority of the classic titles worth releasing are out on DVD.


At least Star Wars and Indiana Jones (not titles I own myself) would benefit from the increased resolution of the HD format. The DVDs were definitely a step-up from the LDs and HD is an even bigger step. However if studios are not willing to invest in full-blown restoration of older classics the HD format will only make their imperfections even more apparent.


I started out with a collection that consisted mostly of movies with loud explosions and tons of special effects but thanks to the DVD format and forums such as these my taste in movies has evolved over the last 7-8 years. Less than 5% of the movies I now own would be worth upgrading to HD. The rest (mostly older B&W classics, foreign films, etc) look just fine even on my front projector set up and I have no incentive whatsoever to buy them all over again in the HD format.

I have a feeling that HD will be a niche format at least for the first 5-6 years and that studios will continue supporting regular DVD for a majority of their releases.

-D

Paul,

I'm curious, what is that argument/logic?

OK, My first thoughts on buiding a collection is to start with all the Christmas classics, A Christmas Carol, (1951 and 1938), Wonderful life etc. I want the Cosmos dvds by Carl Sagan. I'd like 2001, the original Planet of the apes. Perhaps the new War of the worlds SE, and many simular titles. I'm also very interested in full concerts from the 80's. Now these seem tough. There's not much out there and people are still waiting for dvd releases of stuff that had been on VHS. This group worries me the most as i'm not sure how much will ever be released again. I'm talking about concerts by Def leppard, Journey, Priest, and simular stuff. I've aready started these purchases out of fear. It seems one must be content to have these concerts in what ever form you can get your hands on!

Thoughts?

That's a 'mad' argument that may be truer than anyone can imagine. I think that whatever is out on SD now will eventually make it to HD, but not in the next ten years. I can easily see the studios stretching this out over 20 years, unless they find out that their new super-dooper copy protection has been compromised.

The argument over the quantity of titles is that SD won't be around for as long as some people think it will be. Bragging that 'we put out 1,000 titles last year' doesn't mean squat to me. 99% of those could be educational.

If I had a studio with 3000 movies that haven't come out yet I'd be getting as many out as I could - if I could. That is not what I am seeing, though. Titles that I wanted 7 years ago still aren't out. With most of them, I know that I am not the only person that wants them. The studios won't put them out if they will cost too much and/or won't sell that well. If that is the case then the only thing we can look forward to is whatever 'new' movies come out on DVD.

I purchased 4 movies that came out this year. If they want more of my money, they are going to have to come out with more catalog titles.

The OP is another story, though. He can get their double-dips because the orignal DVD is no longer on the shelves, and he wasn't around when the original DVD did come out. This market is where the studios are going to have to make their money from in the future.

The market of graduates that get out on their own and start their own home, with their own new TV (HDMI compliant). You see where this is going, I hope.

Glenn

There are a lot of titles that the studios have chosen not to release on dvd. Most of these titles do not have rights issues and have not been released due to the studios' decision not to release them. At the same time many of these studios have a policy against licensing. Why let a title sit on the shelf gathering dust? If Warner doesn't want to release the Dark Shadows movies maybe MPI might be interested since they have had success with the series. The number of movies on dvd pale in comparison to the number of movies on videocassette. So there are many titles that could be released.

If you looked at TCM every month, you would see a large number of classic titles not on dvd. I suspect very few, if any have rights issues. Rather they suffer from studio indifference. Obviously TCM has done a very good job of marketing older films that many studios seem to lack or are to lazy. When Island In the Sky and High and the Mighty were released, a radio spot ran constantly for several weeks on Rush Limbaugh's show.

I do think that double dipping is a problem for dvd sales.
If somebody bought The Mummy when it first came out, I
don't believe they are going to buy the SE, the Gold edition, platinum edition, etc. There are too many marketing departments that want to play what they see as a safe bet rather than going out on a limb and releasing something new.

As I'd hope you know, film is inherently a "high definition" medium. Any film that's been presented on SD DVD at 480p--or perhaps only on VHS or LD--stands to benefit from a judicious remaster and release on hi def DVD at 1080i or, Goddess willing, 1080p. I'm no RAH, but this notion that films shot before, oh, 1965 are not going to benefit from a higher resolution presentation is bollocks.

William, I could understand if you wanna buy Holiday classics now given that it's November. Leon Vitale may have some other tricks up his sleeve for Kubrick's films, but I'd wait on 2001. And there's no way I'd buy Steven's WOtW--at least wait until DreamWorks finally makes their format support announcement already. I'd bet either WOtW or Munich has good odds for being amongst their first BDs.

Now the 80s concert films are a horse of a different color. I'd surmise that very few if any of those were shot HD. But having said that, there's the issue that frequently gets short shrift in hi def DVD discush: AUDIO. Some of those titles may get re-released with uncompressed audio tracks, particularly surround/audiophilia-savvy artists who record for hi rez-friendly Universal Music Group (e.g., Sting, Peter Gabriel). Even a standard def image with uncompressed aud on BD is worth waiting for a release slate announcement for. It's not as though those titles will not still be available on used SD DVD in 12 months.


Francis, unless you're a rights clearance lawyer for the distributor and thereby have first-hand knowledge of the chain of title issues for particular pictures, I don't see how you can possibly have any basis for this overbroad, overly-declarative, speculative statement.

The studios want to make money. If their market analysis showed a sufficient number of units selling to justify the restoration that may be necessary to release halfway decent product -and- the chain of title is clear such that they can avoid litigation that might cost more than preparing the title for DVD release, they'd more than likely be moving towards releasing it.

I'm more critical than most on this Forum of the studios. I've worked for almost all of them. But the profit motive puts the burden of proof on you to factually support your assertion, which seems to be that the studios capriciously and stubbornly refuse to release many titles for simply no reason whatsoever.

-p

This is just nuts, Glenn. You're saying that nothing but yet-to-be-released new movies and catalog titles not yet on SD DVD are all that we'll see on Blu-ray until 10 years pass? That's absurd.

First of all, in 10 years optical media may not even be the dominant format for viewing movies outside of the theater.

Second, if you think that Sony has spent all that money on archiving their films to hi def and paying Grover Crisp, so they can now sit on those masters for 10 years and not use them to leverage market penetration of their BD format and fledgling television biz, I think you're grossly mistaken.

Go grip that list of Warner, Par and U titles announced for HD DVD last January one more time. Goddess willing, I'd say at least 25% of these--and the list is a strinking blend of catalog and new titles--will be on the list of the first BDs, hopefully announced next summer, and in some of our hands by next Christmas.

-p

This is probably true, but that's more a function of the pricing of HDTV's than the format.

People will replace older material, DVD showed that, as people quickly leapt at the chance to replace VHS. Anyone who's seen a properly calibrated High Definition broadcast knows there's a massive difference between SD and High Defintion material.

But the problem is the price of the TVs. With the smallest of models sitting firmly between 750-1000$, and models equivalent in size to what is currently in most living rooms sitting beteen 1000-1500$ or more depending on technology, High Defintion TV isn't a frequent purchase.

Since TVs generally tend to be a Peer driven market, meaning that people generally tend to buy new TVs after being exposed to a neighbor/friend/family members new TV, there's a problem. If it's sitting outside of the range of the average person, the average person isn't going to come into contact with a properly calibrated High Defintion TV.

As such, it's hard to convince people to buy something new at a price several times what they're used to paying, for a benefit they've never actually seen properly. "Who's going to spend 1000$ to replace a perfectly working TV with a smaller TV?"

Pricing is going to have to drop dramatically. At this point, it may very well be LCD technology that starts pushing High Defintion TV into homes. LCD technology is dropping fast enough that more people will be willing to justify it's expense for a non-centerpiece TV. As it stands now, you can get LCD's in the 20s" range for about 1000$, 19" range is around 400-500$ and the LCD market is being flooded with surplus of high end panels. At it's current rate, I'd expect to see 20s" range models at sub-1000$ price points by Christmas next year.

If that doesn't happen, Blu-ray will remain a niche product until around 2010 when High Def displays are near-mandatory.

Ryan:

Thanks for your comments. But HDTV prices--especially DLP--have come down dramatically in recent years. An even more technologically advanced version of the 30" 16x9 that made me droll some 5 years ago with a $10,000 price tag can now be had for under $1,000 . . . at Costco.

I think the possibly $1,000 expenditure that could prove more vexing for many potential hi def DVD buyers is the cost of players. Luckily, player prices have the potential to come down quickly also . . . but again, it depends on some factors that we just don't know how the studios and manufacturers are going to handle yet.

-p

Damn, I hate being so late to these kinds of threads because there's way too much to catch up on. Hopefully I'm not repeating something here... I find it rather amusing that people assume that releasing "movie only" discs is 'unethical' and assume that the studios are trying to screw the consumer over.

I'm not a business major, but from my limited knowledge, I think I can put it into perspective...

When a new format comes out, it is usually VERY expensive. It will take YEARS for prices to come down to the level where every consumer can get into the format.

In order for the format to 'take off', sales must be good. Now, if the studios immediately released SE versions of HD-DVD's, I would think the prices would be WAY over some people heads and the market for HD-DVD would be a tough struggle.

Look at LD, if they weren't so expensive to begin with, the regular consumer may have gotten into it (thus, driving prices down)...

If 'bare bones' HD-DVD's do come out initially, I'm sure the studios plan isn't "Let's put out bare bones editions first, THEN make them pay for SE's down the line (insert evil laugh)"

I think it's more to the effect of "If we want HD-DVD to take off, we need to keep the prices down so they are 'attractive' to more people than just the HT enthusiasts, so instead of screwing ourselves like LD, let's try to make the initial HD releases 'affordable'. If that means bare bones, then that's what we have to do..."

IMHO!

Paul - sorry. Something must have come out wrong. The only thing (I think) that will come out on HD are the yet-to-be-released and everything that has been put out on SD. If it isn't out now (with exceptions), the odds are we'll never see it.

This time though, they'll stretch it out a little more. They could make up a twenty-year release schedule, just to keep a steady stream of money flowing.

Mark, I have to ask - if they had one million in costs to 'pay back' would it make sense to price the first 1,000 players out on the shelves at $1,000 each, or to put out 10,000 players at $100. each?

Glenn

The difference between DVD and the HD formats is that consumers now have a taste for special features. Nobody outside the LD community knew about them back then. I'm still betting that the studios will release barebones HD versions on the estimation that we'll all be glad just to have HD versions of movies, later breaking out the SEs. Like Mark said, they don't want to rush out the SEs and charge more because lesses units might be sold. And they can't just charge less, or they might set a low price precedent, which they don't want

Everything would be dependant on what they could sell a single player for. I doubt it would be possible to sell one HD player for $100 and make a profit.

True, but D-VHS was a linear-format that involved rewinding/fast-fowarding which made special features akward to impliment given the lack of random access and "menu" ability.

IMO, Blu-ray will need to incorporate special features if it is going to take hold and gain momentum in a DVD-saturated world.

I'm sure there will never be a shortage of marketing ploys to get people to double-dip, but I think that most studios will give us Blu-ray presentations really worth the invenstment right off the bat.


Important to note is that many of the studios like Blu-ray because of its expansive storage capability. Sounds like they have plans for more than just a 2.5 hour movie to make use of it.

Which studio does the most dipping?(double/Quadruple/etc,.)Fox?

Just how many versions of MIB are there???

LOL. Yeah I think David B. called it out: even if you discount SuperBits since they are arguably a different product line, I think SPHE would take first place in that dubious derby.

-p

I feel comfortable in saying that most of the movies on TCM have few issues because the studios had the power. Once the movies were made, they belonged to the studio. Only in the 50s with stars such as John Wayne setting up their own production companies did the power begin to shift. The only real question is who owns the films now since some classics
have gone through numerous changes.

The studios have neglected these films for economic reasons.
They believe that either these films will not make a profit or not enough of a profit to bother with. These are multi-billion dollar companies so a million or two profit is nothing whereas a smaller company like Image, that's well worth the investment. The studios are unhappy about a 9% sales growth. That is why they are trying to push hi-def on us. I think you will see pretty much the same movies all over again.

As for HD dvds, will they be able to compete with $100 or less SDvd players? If the transition does take place, I think it will take a decade.

Yeah, the DVD market (to most consumers) is still too fresh to adopt anything new. Only us here are willing to upgrade to new equipment every few years. Most consumers hang onto their stuff for YEARS.

I'm sure you'd hear a lot of "HD-DVD players? No thanks...I just bought a regular DVD player!"

I think this would be high on the list of issues that best crystallize our differences in persepctive: you feel HD is being 'pushed' on you. I, on the other hand, am eagerly awaiting the natural and long-delayed development of HD content on consumer media that arguably should have taken place years ago, precluding the need for another NTSC-based video format (SD DVD) from ever even coming to market.


Of course you will. And with a careful eye on price, remastering, new telecine for 1080i and supps, I eagerly look forward to buying many of them. I've said in the 'HD DVD releases in Q4 '05 thread' months ago how many of those titles I'm looking forward to purchasing in HD, regardless of which format they street on.

-p

Agreed. I don't doubt that there are some complicated examples but I think the studios know their rights to the bulk of their inventory. On studio system material, issues of video distribution shouldn't be much of a issue. For example, music rights don't apply as the material was home grown played by studio orchestras.

Paul,

My question was around your comment that older films would "especially" benefit from going HD.

I think you are now saying that older films would benefit but not especially which I would agree with. Film going to HD had little downside with the important caveat of coming from good transfers from good source material.

Otherwise, older stuff could actually look worse as the problem just become magnified.

My position is consistent, even if my comments intimated my point as opposed to making it explicit: I said "some would argue" that older films epecially will benefit. What I mean by that is that some would find an 'older' film that's never been restored and has only seen release on LD benefitting more (showing greater improvement in p.q. compared to previously available home vid options) than, say, Batman Begins.

-p

Dear studios...please...push away! Push all over me! Push more! Push Faster! Yeah... I want your big 1080-P... MORE!!!!!

:b



You mean the same movies we saw on CED, discovision, Beta, VHS, Laserdisc, and DVD? I'm *shocked*!!!



But seriously, to your point...if hi-def disc turns out to be more of a niche product while it gains ground (similar to laserdisc), it might actually end up encompassing non-mainstream titles that appeal to nich film collectors/movie-buffs.



Paul, I got your meaning. I think there is a general notion sometimes folks fall into that only "hi-tech" movies will really look that much better with hi-def...and that DVD is "good enough" for old-movies. Truth is that even a 16mm B&W print will look better in 1080P than it does on DVD.

It's not double/triple/quadruple dipping if it's on a new format, and HD is a far bigger jump in quality than VHS to DVD or even LD to DVD.

David: Nice post. Faster, pussycat! Kill! Kill!

Mark: Amen. But having said that, I'm hoping against hope, precedent and the profit motive that the studios won't disingenuously, purposefully withold available supps only to release them later. It might be a while before there's a robust used market for hi def discs. And even then, the same niche aud will be wanting to sell the original release to get the more recent one with supps. So trading up might not be as easy as dropping by Wherehouse.com (which to this day doesn't deal in SACD and DVD-A).

-p

Yeah...you know you want it. SAY IT! I want to hear you BEG for 1080-P. That's right...your DTS-HD DADDY is gonna make you BEG. SLAPPP!!

:p)

I think he meant double dipping more than once on Blu-ray (like a bare bones Fifth Element Blu-ray in March...then a Blu-ray special edition 6 months later...then a Blu-ray super-bit version with better picture but no extras another six months later...)

Uhhh...David...I think you're ruining the future formats for me.

If you don't like double dipping follow my lead and don't do it. It's been 7 years since I got my first DVD player and I've yet to double dip on a single title.