Should studios kill off standard definition DVD's? (1 Viewer)

[Carabimero]

What took me a long time to overcome is people who do other things while watching movies: text, talk on the phone, etc., whether they be in their home, or someone else's, or in the theater.


I finally got that the things that are important to me aren't always (or usually) important to others. If I love something, it's enough that I love it. I don't have to try and make others love it or even expect them to. My life would have been much happier if I had figured this out years ago.

 

[Thomas T]

younger consumers probably are perfectly willing to leave the theater experience in the theater, where the management can worry about the presentation. We will all be remembered as the crazy old uncle with all those old movies on the shiny discs that he watched in his little theater in the house.LOL

LOL ... so true! When my nephews visit and eyeball my 4,000 dvd/blu collection (and leftover laser discs), they sigh, "what are we going to do with all this junk after you die?".

 

[Dave Moritz]

What took me a long time to overcome is people who do other things while watching movies: text, talk on the phone, etc., whether they be in their home, or someone else's, or in the theater.

If people are so adicted to there phones they just have to be on them they can do that at there own home all they want. I hate when people mess with there phones in the theater! It is not cheap going to the theater anymore especially after you go to the snack bar. People want to play with there phones in the break room at work no big deal, they want to have a movie on at home and pay more attention to there phone no problem, but if I am paying money to see a movie for the first time they better not start messing with that stupid phone.

 

[Vic Pardo]

Yep...UHD will fade away just like like all the hi-def audio discs everyone swore was going to be the next big thing in the audio world.

I don't even know what a hi-def audio disc is. Or UHD, for that matter. (What does UHD stand for?)


I have had a Blu-ray player for nearly five years, but only have 52 Blu-rays, most of them yet to be viewed, while I have hundreds of DVDs and thousands of VHS tapes. Some things look great on Blu-ray, but as I said in another thread, not everything needs to be seen that clearly. Blu-ray can be a pretty intense viewing experience and it's not something I can withstand for too long before I need to go back to watching something on standard def. One movie or one Japanese pop music concert at a time is enough for me on Blu-ray. (And it's the J-pop concerts that dominate my Blu collection, since those come with lots of extra performances that aren't on the DVD editions.)


I have hundreds of low-budget kung fu films on VHS that I enjoy watching in their less-than-pristine condition, which is probably the best some of these are ever gonna look, given that the original prints have all disappeared and the companies that made them have all folded. I usually put one on at night before going to bed on the 13-inch TV-VCR combo in my bedroom. I have a DVD player connected to it also, but it would be ludicrous to connect a Blu-ray player to it.


So old-school standard-def physical media will have a long life in my household--and I have brand-new backup VCRs and code-free DVD players in the closet for when I need them.

 

[Dave Moritz]

I don't even know what a hi-def audio disc is. Or UHD, for that matter. (What does UHD stand for?)

UHD = Ultra High Definition

not everything needs to be seen that clearly

Not sure why you would say that? Seeing that 1080p is not even full resolution of 35mm film why do you think that you do not need to see something that can not actually match the source 35mm material? While on the average screen sizes 1080p bluray can give you that 35mm like exsperience the fact is that only UHD-Bluray will come super close to 35mm film if not just like it if you are going to use a UHD projector! How is it that blu-ray is so intense you have to go back to standard definition discs? And how is it you have mostly J pop concerts on blu-ray but do not feel movies warrant getting them on 1080p HD blu-ray disc?

I usually put one on at night before going to bed on the 13-inch TV-VCR combo in my bedroom. I have a DVD player connected to it also, but it would be ludicrous to connect a Blu-ray player to it.

I have to agree that it is pointless and even ludicrous to hook up a blu-ray player to a 13" TV VCR combo thus taking the HD movie down to 480p! And that is asuming that you little combo even has component video as it most likely only has the single composite video rca which would not allow you to hook up a blu-ray player anyway.


The 1080p blu-ray disc is going to currently give you the best presentation of the movie and get you closest to a commercial cinema experience. If HD is somehow to much for you take in I would recommend that you never get a UHD TV as it is capible of displaying 4X the resolution and the new UHD TV's with HDR (High Dynamic Range) would get you much brighter colors than you would ever see on a 1080p HDTV. I have heard people claim that they can not tell the difference between 480p DVD and 1080p Blu-ray but never someone saying the picture from 1080 is to intense so they have to watch standard definition programming because of how intense the 1080p blurays are.

 

[Jesse Skeen]

I honestly don't see the need for standard DVDs anymore. You can get Blu-Ray players (which of course still play standard DVDs) for under $100 now, and I can't even FIND a single standard-def TV in stores now- even many thrift stores will not accept donations of old TVs anymore as nobody buys them. They've at least finally done away with the 4x3 pan and scan transfers of new movies on DVDs, but the format still shows its age.


VHS was pretty much "forced" off the market in the end, as there were a number of people still hanging onto that. Disney was at least trying to push Blu-Ray for a while, as a couple titles (including Snow White) were released first as BD/DVD sets with the DVD-only version released a few weeks later. They don't seem to be doing that anymore, though most BD new releases now include a standard DVD which always make me ask why?

 

[Thomas T]

I honestly don't see the need for standard DVDs anymore ..... VHS was pretty much "forced" off the market in the end, as there were a number of people still hanging onto that.

You may no longer see a need for standard DVD but it is still very much a viable market. It's not just a "number" of people still hanging on to it. It's a lot of people as sales figures show. VHS wasn't "forced" off the market. It died a natural death. When it's DVD's (and blu ray) time, it will die a natural death too. Aesthetic views aside, video company executives will decide, when the time comes, that DVD is no longer a profitable option for them to continue manufacturing them.


What will happen to lesser and obscure films when DVD goes? Do you really think, say, Warners will remaster and clean up stuff like Housewife (1934) or Wall Of Noise (1963) for high definition in order for them to be put out on blu ray. The small market for those titles can't justify the cost it will take to clean and restore those films in high definition.

 

[JoHud]

What will happen to lesser and obscure films when DVD goes? Do you really think, say, Warners will remaster and clean up stuff like Housewife (1934) or Wall Of Noise (1963) for high definition in order for them to be put out on blu ray. The small market for those titles can't justify the cost it will take to clean and restore those films in high definition.

If that ever happened, they would probably attempt some sort of blu-ray MOD. But why would they when DVD MODs are much cheaper to produce and (currently) more dependable? However, blu-ray MODs would likely be more expensive for consumers to buy for some reason or another.

 

[Al.Anderson]

But then we had HD-DVD and Blu-ray disc fighting it out and we all know what happened then.

No we don't, at least I don't. HD-DVD was the preferred medium, and was seemingly winning; I was backing it because it was cheaper. Then, suddenly, and for no apparent reason studios switched to BR. I never liked that switch because it wasn't market driven.


For that reason I still don't like paying a premium for BR copies of "ordinary" movies and especially TV shows. For casual viewing I'm fine with DVD quality, and I'm a HT buff. My wife doesn't care - and my 20-something kids *really* don't care. In fact, they watch movies on their computers, tablets, and phones. I can't justify that, but regardless, I don't think they and their friends are going to be willing to spend extra money for higher definition.


So no, I like having the choice of DVD or BR disk.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I honestly don't see the need for standard DVDs anymore. You can get Blu-Ray players (which of course still play standard DVDs) for under $100 now, and I can't even FIND a single standard-def TV in stores now- even many thrift stores will not accept donations of old TVs anymore as nobody buys them. They've at least finally done away with the 4x3 pan and scan transfers of new movies on DVDs, but the format still shows its age.


VHS was pretty much "forced" off the market in the end, as there were a number of people still hanging onto that. Disney was at least trying to push Blu-Ray for a while, as a couple titles (including Snow White) were released first as BD/DVD sets with the DVD-only version released a few weeks later. They don't seem to be doing that anymore, though most BD new releases now include a standard DVD which always make me ask why?

Judging by the sales figures, you're in the distinct minority. I just bought some standard DVDs yesterday because I doubt the film titles I purchased would ever make to BD or if they do, it will be years from now. I'm not getting any younger so I'll enjoy what I can today.

 

[Edwin-S]

People comparing Blu-ray to Laserdisc and calling BD a niche market are the ones that make me laugh. Blu-ray may not have overtaken DVD, but it is far from a niche, especially when comparing it to Laserdisc, which was a true niche market. Blu-ray can be found everywhere, including the supermarket. Laserdisc couldn't be found anywhere outside of specialty record shops, at least where I live. Blu-ray became as ubiquitous in video rental shops (when they existed) as DVD and VHS before it. The video rental shops I frequented never had laserdiscs for rental. So calling BD a niche like Laserdisc is so far off base it isn't even funny.


As for getting rid of DVD, why bother? If someone wants to spend a 800 dollars or more on a high-definition TV and never use even half its capability then they can have at it. Most people are completely unaware of the quality of their music or video fare anyway. To them, it is just background noise to fill in the empty spaces of their day. That is why a shitty, low resolution MP3 copy of a song outsells the better quality version of it on CD. People couldn't care less about quality. The same goes for movies.

 

[Al.Anderson]

If someone wants to spend a 800 dollars or more on a high-definition TV and never use even half its capability then they can have at it.

It's not either/or. I will buy Game of Thrones BR; Big Bang Theory can be DVD and I save $5.

... calling BD a niche market are the ones that make me laugh. ... So calling BD a niche like Laserdisc is so far off base it isn't even funny.

My head hurts, are you laughing or not?

 

[TravisR]

People comparing Blu-ray to Laserdisc and calling BD a niche market are the ones that make me laugh. Blu-ray may not have overtaken DVD, but it is far from a niche, especially when comparing it to Laserdisc, which was a true niche market..

You're right but I understand why people use the analogy. One is the dominant format in terms of sales & popularity but the other is technically superior.

 

[Dave Moritz]

So while DVD's are still making money and consumers are still buying them at what point should the format be allowed to die? At what point should it be delegated only for content that can not be put on higher resolution formats? Personally my budget doesn't allow me to buy as many titles as I would like so I would rather focus on the best video and audio quality releases which means buying HD blu-ray discs not dvd.


As far as niche formats goes I also do not see blu-ray discs being niche. And if blu-ray is a niche format it sure achieved a large number of supporters and those who purchased hardware and software. Blu-ray acheived a good percentage of market share something that laser disc never achieved. I consider formats like Beta, Laser Disc, DAT, Mini Disc, DCC, DVD-A, SACD and the failed HD-DVD! HD-DVD may have come out first and had some success but studios switched when it was clear blu-ray had the upper hand. Toshiba did not want to give up there revenue stream and after they finally realized it was a loosing fight they canceled there CES demos and press events at the last second. I purchased HD-DVD and Blu-ray only because I did not want to wait for the format war to end and at the time it was hard to tell how long it would go on. How ever I did prefer and still prefer the blu-ray format and did not like Microsoft getting involved in a home video format. But even though I purchased the player and movies I am glad it lost.

I might end up getting a Netflix account to watch content I do not own and to watch older tv series. But there is no way I will buy movies via digital download I personally see no value in a format that you need to download and re download when you hard drive crashes and dies. The only way around that is to operate multiple hard drives in a raid so if one drive dies you do not loose your content. I think most of us tech savy members know that even if Joe six pack set up a media server it is not likely that they would run a raid array and therefore if the single drive dies he is going to have to download everything all over again. Personally I don't have the money to buy a bunch of drives to run a raid set up and then buy more and more just to have a large library that besides buying all those hard drives you have to still pay for the content as well. If a blu-ray player dies just run out and buy a new one! You don't have to re download everything you do not have to reconstitute the data to the drive you replaced from the rest of the raid drives, just plug the player and insert a disc! And not to mention if you purchased a lot of content via a streaming company or digital download that if the company goes under there goes all that money and all that content you never owned in the beginning.

You're right but I understand why people use the analogy. One is the dominant format in terms of sales & popularity but the other is technically superior.

DVD may be dominant because more people are buying it and not only is blu-ray technically superior but it offers a better video and audio presentation/experience. Another example of how the better format doesn't always win unfortunately. Another good example of this is people buying mp3's choosing convenience over quality.

 

[Robert Crawford]

So while DVD's are still making money and consumers are still buying them at what point should the format be allowed to die? At what point should it be delegated only for content that can not be put on higher resolution formats? Personally my budget doesn't allow me to buy as many titles as I would like so I would rather focus on the best video and audio quality releases which means buying HD blu-ray discs not dvd.


As far as niche formats goes I also do not see blu-ray discs being niche. And if blu-ray is a niche format it sure achieved a large number of supporters and those who purchased hardware and software. Blu-ray acheived a good percentage of market share something that laser disc never achieved. I consider formats like Beta, Laser Disc, DAT, Mini Disc, DCC, DVD-A, SACD and the failed HD-DVD! HD-DVD may have come out first and had some success but studios switched when it was clear blu-ray had the upper hand. Toshiba did not want to give up there revenue stream and after they finally realized it was a loosing fight they canceled there CES demos and press events at the last second. I purchased HD-DVD and Blu-ray only because I did not want to wait for the format war to end and at the time it was hard to tell how long it would go on. How ever I did prefer and still prefer the blu-ray format and did not like Microsoft getting involved in a home video format. But even though I purchased the player and movies I am glad it lost.

3594683295_60d5780b1c.jpg

Digital_Compact_Cassette_front.jpg



I might end up getting a Netflix account to watch content I do not own and to watch older tv series. But there is no way I will buy movies via digital download I personally see no value in a format that you need to download and re download when you hard drive crashes and dies. The only way around that is to operate multiple hard drives in a raid so if one drive dies you do not loose your content. I think most of us tech savy members know that even if Joe six pack set up a media server it is not likely that they would run a raid array and therefore if the single drive dies he is going to have to download everything all over again. Personally I don't have the money to buy a bunch of drives to run a raid set up and then buy more and more just to have a large library that besides buying all those hard drives you have to still pay for the content as well. If a blu-ray player dies just run out and buy a new one! You don't have to re download everything you do not have to reconstitute the data to the drive you replaced from the rest of the raid drives, just plug the player and insert a disc! And not to mention if you purchased a lot of content via a streaming company or digital download that if the company goes under there goes all that money and all that content you never owned in the beginning.



DVD may be dominant because more people are buying it and not only is blu-ray technically superior but it offers a better video and audio presentation/experience. Another example of how the better format doesn't always win unfortunately. Another good example of this is people buying mp3's choosing convenience over quality.

Like most of the time, the market will make that determination despite your desire to make it happen now.

 

[Worth]

Delete

 

[Nick*Z]

UHD BluRay will not kill off Blu-ray. It's an even smaller market than Blu-ray itself. What I take umbrage to in this discussion is the graph posted by BobO'Link showing both format sales down from last year. Fair enough. It's true. But ask yourself why? Is it that the audience is walking away from physical media or is it that at the same time last year more popular and richly mined catalog releases along with some notable and high-powered new releases hit the stands that drove sales up (and consequently, the lack thereof this time around, driving sales down).


The whole pie chart and graph model is flawed - severely - because it only takes into account actual sales figures without considering product output from the studios. I can guarantee you one thing, if you release Jurassic World to Blu-ray it will artificially inflate the figures for the quantifying mode of measurement next year, arguably only to be topped or at least met with competitive numbers if, say, the release of a Star Wars movie gets released on the same day and date.


UHD is DOA folks - for at least some of the reasons you have all eloquently already contributed to in this discussion; chiefly, because an aging population who have only just figured out how to watch movies on DVD aren't particularly interested in upgrading to anything else over the anxiety of having to 'reinvent' the wheel all over again.


Now, the question of forced obsolescence has yet to be addressed. DVD's meteoric success rate was predicated on two factors: one - it was launched at a time when interest in home video itself had begun to cool (hence, new format, better picture/sound, etc. - all pluses to be mined). But the bigger reason is that within virtually a year of DVD hitting the market, the industry en masse made the critical decision to retire virtually all the 'old' formats already in play. Instantly, LaserDisc vanished - new releases canceled. But then the industry also said, 'VHS is a thing of the past, and began to aggressively toggle down their output of movies on tape, while at the same time escalating their output on DVD. The industry never did this when it introduced Blu-ray. Instead, it took the attitude there was plenty of room for co-existence. Bad idea! Dumb idea, actually. But smart from the studio's perspective when you consider they suddenly realized that had NO hi-def scans available to mass market. DVD, particularly in its first three or four years was perfectly contented to slap out any ole quality of existing transfers. Blu-ray promised 'perfect picture and sound' - a commodity in VERY short supply thanks to decades of improperly archived materials.


So then the question became, what to restore; how much to restore, how to cut costs and corners and keep the product viable for consumers who were, after all, expecting perfection, though frequently force-fed far less on the new format. It worked so long as no studio put their best foot forward. I mean, how can you tell a crappy 1080p transfer from a good one if you've only seen the crappy ones. And let's be honest - anything in high def can look marginally sharper than it does on DVD because of the advanced bit rate. But then studios like Sony put their best foot forward. We started to see what the Blu-ray format was really capable of, making the comparisons between Blu-ray and DVD not even apples to oranges, but apples to jewel encrusted papayas.


So, here we are, with some studios steadily improving their output and quality while others continue to lag behind and pray the consumer is still too stupid to notice. Fox Home Video is particularly notorious on this account, their fingers on the bait and switch. They'll give us a pristine transfer like Laura or How Green Was My Valley, then offer up an utter botch job like The Greatest Story Ever Told or less than perfect Song of Bernadette. Badly done is badly done - period.


Today's Blu-ray market will endure because there are many of us (a goodly number who ascribe to forums such as this one) who recognize quality when we see it and can't wait to satisfy our fix for some more. UHD Blu-ray isn't going to last for the same reason: there's very little scanned in 4K to feed the kitty. What you'll get is a lot of new scans in 1080p bumped up to a 4K signal. Inadvertently, that could be good news for standard Blu-ray proper. We'll have to wait and see.

 

[Thomas T]

So while DVD's are still making money and consumers are still buying them at what point should the format be allowed to die?

You still don't get it, do you? We don't make that decision to pull the plug. As has been said several times, the market place will decide if and when DVD is not a viable and profitable factor.


What I don't understand is why you're overly concerned with the "death" of DVD. Blu ray is here and UHD is coming and if that is what you prefer, it is available to you. Why should you be so concerned with the termination of DVDs. If they have no place in your life, obviously you won't buy them. Why are you so determined to deny access to them to others for whom it is still a viable format?

 

[BobO'Link]

UHD BluRay will not kill off Blu-ray. It's an even smaller market than Blu-ray itself. What I take umbrage to in this discussion is the graph posted by BobO'Link showing both format sales down from last year. Fair enough. It's true. But ask yourself why? Is it that the audience is walking away from physical media or is it that at the same time last year more popular and richly mined catalog releases along with some notable and high-powered new releases hit the stands that drove sales up (and consequently, the lack thereof this time around, driving sales down).


The whole pie chart and graph model is flawed - severely - because it only takes into account actual sales figures without considering product output from the studios. I can guarantee you one thing, if you release Jurassic World to Blu-ray it will artificially inflate the figures for the quantifying mode of measurement next year, arguably only to be topped or at least met with competitive numbers if, say, the release of a Star Wars movie gets released on the same day and date.

The chart wasn't meant to show physical sales are declining, even though they are (~$9 million down from 2 years ago with several factors contributing to the decline), but to demonstrate the ratio of DVD to BR sales. While sales figures go up/down depending on just what's been released in any given month the ratio of DVD to BR has remained farily consistent over several years. On 6/22/13 the ratio was DVD@72%/BR@28% and on 6/23/15 it's DVD@68%/BR@32%. Those percentages change monthly depending on what's been released but still remain fairly consistent over a year with DVD at ~70% and BR ~30%.


Like it or not, DVD is still the dominant physical media for movies/TV product and that's not likely to change any time soon.

 

[JoHud]

First, regarding DVD, the major thing to note is that DVD is both compact and because it is a digital medium is compatible with virtually every digital player out there, which sets it far apart from the VHS or laserdisc.


VHS and Laserdisc are both analog formats not compatible with hardly anything out today or even in their day. Laserdiscs were large and bulky, playable solely on expensive laserdisc players and nothing else. VHS could only be played on VHS players. The notable exception were the DVD/VHS hybrid players that allowed some coexistence for a while but those players were hardly the norm and more expensive than a simple DVD player. VHS also hung on as the primary method of video recording until DVD-R and purely software video file backups became the norm. Magnetic tape in general never had hope of competing in the digital age


DVD is also the only digital bridge to the CRTV and the 720p flatscreens (the first, while dead, still has heavy consumer penetration and the latter still on the market), both of which are of common usage today. Sure, you can play blu-rays on both, but there's absolutely no reason to do so since there's little to no benefit.


Lastly, there's PCs and Laptops. Most anything today that has a disc tray supports DVD playback which blu-ray playback still remains relatively uncommon and VHS/lasterdisc playback is unheard of aside from rare, tech savvy set-ups designed for PC monitor playback or video file back-ups.


As I mentioned before, UHD is something that is pushed far more by gamers, particularly PC gamers because modern PC games have support UHD in the past few years and the major graphics card manufacturers are marketing it as a necessity for "next gen gaming."


But even then that's pretty niche and really only targets the hardcore, texture obsessed, tech geek crowd. UHD is not even supported by current consoles. It will be in the future, but even then is only expected to affect video streaming initially.


It's waaay too early to even suggest UHD could be anything but niche at the moment, and adding home video to that equation is an even greater microcosm. If it ever gains serious traction (and that's a big if), it will be in the wake of the gaming industry.