Should studios kill off standard definition DVD's? (2 Viewers)

[Edwin-S]

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



My head hurts, are you laughing or not?

You aren't the typical person I was writing about. There are a lot of people who would buy an HDTV, but figure that DVD is good enough since their DVD player works just fine. Maybe they upgrade if the player quits or, most likely, they go to streaming and think the "HD" quality of streaming is as good as Blu-ray.


Sometimes you can laugh at the ridiculousness of a statement. The statement itself doesn't necessarily have to be funny.

 

[Edwin-S]

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.

I guess if some people want to equate technologically superior with niche that's their right. I define a niche market as availability of access and affordability. LD was technically superior, hard to find and expensive so it was a niche market. In automotive terms, it was the Tesla of home video formats. BD is technologically superior, easy to find and relatively inexpensive. Toyota outsells Hyundai, but would anyone ever think Hyundai was a niche market?


Edit: Sorry, but I just thought of this. There is a subset of Blu-ray that could be compared to Laserdisc as a niche market and yet defies my definition of a niche market. That market is 3D blu-rays. They are widely available, relatively affordable and probably sell at laserdisc levels in North America.

 

[Dave Moritz]

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

I totally agree that the market will make that decision but I do not think that negates the question of how long should DVD stay relevant before it is replaced? And I honestly do not recall stating that I want it to happen now or stating that was my desire for it to end right now. Yes I feel the format is outdated and in some ways is not really relevant anymore. But like someone else mentioned what would we do with content tied to standard definition analog sources. And sure I do not buy dvd's but obviously many other people do and I know it is not up to me which is one reason I am offended by your comment. I respect your opinion and the contributions you make to this forum and look forward to your future posts.

 

[Dr Griffin]

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?

I can understand his query. It's quite a situation that took two decades to fully arise: three disc formats at the same time that each new one has needed new hardware to play. My desire would be that all future catalog titles be released on Blu-ray, and if they also want to release a DVD, then so be it. I think the feeling that UHD will not see many catalog titles is not far fetched. Of course calling for the end of DVD is futile while it is still profitable. I just don't like the fact that Blu-ray is receiving less catalog title releases, and they are going to DVD - which is based in the 70+ year old former TV system's resolution. They keep bringing out new technology expecting it to sell, while still putting into the older format, while at the same time saying they can't release X on BD because of costs. What does that say about what we can expect from UHD Blu-ray? Upscaling can be quite good for the higher bit-rate DVDs (few), but I don't care - DVD-only releases of films in 2015 is frustrating, but I have to say I understand why, despite what my preference is. It's looking more and more like a hardware plot actually.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

But like someone else mentioned what would we do with content tied to standard definition analog sources.

Hypothetically speaking, if DVD were to disappear overnight, I think the solution would be to simply release the SD material on a Blu-ray disc, not upscaled or anything, but still in SD. For a show like "All In The Family" or "Married With Children" which were shot on standard-def videotape, I'd bet they could fit an entire season on one Blu-ray disc instead of multiple DVD discs. Instead of a 60 disc complete series set, you could have a complete series on 6 BDs (example numbers, I'm not sure how many DVDs those actual complete series take up). In my limited experience with SD content on Blu-ray, I've found that it still looks better than it does on DVD. The AVC codec used on Blu-ray seems to be a little better at handling analog video than the MPEG-2 codec was on DVD.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I totally agree that the market will make that decision but I do not think that negates the question of how long should DVD stay relevant before it is replaced? And I honestly do not recall stating that I want it to happen now or stating that was my desire for it to end right now. Yes I feel the format is outdated and in some ways is not really relevant anymore. But like someone else mentioned what would we do with content tied to standard definition analog sources. And sure I do not buy dvd's but obviously many other people do and I know it is not up to me which is one reason I am offended by your comment. I respect your opinion and the contributions you make to this forum and look forward to your future posts.

I'm sorry you're offended, but your comments gave me the impression you want DVD to disappear as soon as possible. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your intentions, for that I apologize to you, but that's been my perception of this thread.

 

[schan1269]

I totally agree that the market will make that decision but I do not think that negates the question of how long should DVD stay relevant before it is replaced? And I honestly do not recall stating that I want it to happen now or stating that was my desire for it to end right now. Yes I feel the format is outdated and in some ways is not really relevant anymore. But like someone else mentioned what would we do with content tied to standard definition analog sources. And sure I do not buy dvd's but obviously many other people do and I know it is not up to me which is one reason I am offended by your comment. I respect your opinion and the contributions you make to this forum and look forward to your future posts.

You are missing out on a whole bunch of movies not buying DVD.

Is the next thread...

"Broadcast should dump DD and go to DTS"...

 

[Dave Moritz]

I'm sorry you're offended, but your comments gave me the impression you want DVD to disappear as soon as possible. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your intentions, for that I apologize to you, but that's been my perception of this thread.

I don't think it should disappear as soon as possible but with a new format coming out and with limited retail space I just feel that I would put the question out there, at what point do people think it should go. If that is what impression you got from my thread I apologize. I am not honestly used to writing about subjects and it is totally possible I did not do a very good job at the way I posed the question. While I would like to support the new format that doesn't negate the fact that many people are buying dvd's and that they have a place. It just seems kinda weird that we have had HD content for some time and now we are knocking at the door of 4K with players and movies coming soon. I still have dvd's in my collection and they are not going anywhere till that time they are upgraded. It is funny how some dvd's look pretty decent and some others because of the transfer look really bad. Will try to work on doing better at how I try to get my point across in the future.

 

[Dave Moritz]

You are missing out on a whole bunch of movies not buying DVD.

Is the next thread...

"Broadcast should dump DD and go to DTS"...

I could very well be right there Sam but I have had to be careful with finances for over 15 years now and I just don't have the extra cash to justify double dipping anymore. It will even be tough repurchasing UHD titles that would replace 1080p discs. It is going to be a struggle to upgrade my system to UHD as far as upgrading my receiver and getting a uhd player. Even if things went sideways with UHD discs and players and I decided to skip it for a number of years then I would still want to get a 1080p projector and I need to upgrade my receiver to have 3D pass through and emersive decoding like Dolby Atmos and DTS-X. Plus I need to upgrade my pathetic and aging Polk CS-100 center speaker and rear speakers. And so I also have to be more careful on how I spend my software money when I get it so this is the main reason I do not want to get DVD's because that takes away from getting really nice 1080p HD transfers. Just watched my DVD superbit version of Bad Boys the other day and Mad Max on DVD.

 

[Worth]

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!

Yes and no. 35mm film is generally believed to have somewhere between 3-4K of real image detail on the original camera negative. But you wouldn't have seen anything near that in an actual cinema. Release prints are several stages removed from that - going from negative to interpositive, internegative and finally, print. Add in the gate weave and imperfect focus that are endemic to 35mm projection, and what you're actually seeing on screen is closer to 720p. Even a pristine print struck directly off the negative is going to be in the 1080p-2K range. Prior to digital technology, the only way to see something in the 4K range in the cinema was true IMAX 15/70.

 

[Randy Korstick]

People still in denial about Blu-Ray not being a niche product like Laserdisc is quite humorous. Blu-Ray was supposed to replace DVD. Its been out for 9 years and it is still out sold by more than 2-1 by DVD and like all discs its losing momentum. Everyone I ask at work about blu ray ask me why bother with Blu-Ray its more expensive and harder to find. Hard to find meaning to rent since the average person rents far more than they buy. The fact that you cannot rent Blu-Ray from vending machines and local stores very easily is the biggest reason why it remained niche. I know the rental market has now changed primarily to streaming. Most people just don't want to change when they feel DVD is good enough. Just like they did not want to change from VHS to Laserdisc. By the way Laserdisc was sold everywhere in Southern California: Ken Cranes, Tower Records and Video, The Wherehouse and even in some mom and pop rental stores so unless you are in a remote area hard to find is just another of the many urban legends about "Laserdisc". I get wanting to believe your preferred format is not niche. I loved Laserdisc over VHS and I love Blu-Ray over DVD but the bottom line is the average Joe on the street does not think the upgrade is worth it and what they have is good enough. That is exactly what makes a product niche because it is not the mainstream preferred format. Blu Ray has had more than enough time to take over and failed to do so. And even though Blu-Rays market share is much larger than Laserdisc it will always be a niche format just like Laserdisc because they both failed to take over the market as the dominant media and they remain popular primarily with home theater enthusiast and not the average movie rental watcher which is 85% of the market. All the people I know who collected Laserdisc now collect Blu-Rays. The majority who did not now rent or collect DVD and not Blu-Ray. That says a lot too.

Also Laserdisc was always cheaper than VHS to buy new releases: $79.99-$89.00 list for VHS and $29.99-$39.99 lists for most Laserdiscs but that didn't help Laserdisc because people could rent VHS easier and they already had it.. But Blu-Ray costing a few dollars more than DVD does seem to be big in why the average person doesn't want to upgrade and why it is seen as a format for home theater enthusiast and not the average Joe on the street.

 

[Robert Crawford]

People still in denial about Blu-Ray not being a niche product like Laserdisc is quite humorous. Blu-Ray was supposed to replace DVD. Its been out for 9 years and it is still out sold by more than 2-1 by DVD and like all discs its losing momentum. Everyone I ask at work about blu ray ask me why bother with Blu-Ray its more expensive and harder to find. Hard to find meaning to rent since the average person rents far more than they buy. The fact that you cannot rent Blu-Ray from vending machines and local stores very easily is the biggest reason why it remained niche. I know the rental market has now changed primarily to streaming. Most people just don't want to change when they feel DVD is good enough. Just like they did not want to change from VHS to Laserdisc. By the way Laserdisc was sold everywhere in Southern California: Ken Cranes, Tower Records and Video, The Wherehouse and even in some mom and pop rental stores so unless you are in a remote area hard to find is just another of the many urban legends about "Laserdisc". I get wanting to believe your preferred format is not niche. I loved Laserdisc over VHS and I love Blu-Ray over DVD but the bottom line is the average Joe on the street does not think the upgrade is worth it and what they have is good enough. That is exactly what makes a product niche because it is not the mainstream preferred format. Blu Ray has had more than enough time to take over and failed to do so. And even though Blu-Rays market share is much larger than Laserdisc it will always be a niche format just like Laserdisc because they both failed to take over the market as the dominant media and they remain popular primarily with home theater enthusiast and not the average movie rental watcher which is 85% of the market. All the people I know who collected Laserdisc now collect Blu-Rays. The majority who did not now rent or collect DVD and not Blu-Ray. That says a lot too.

Also Laserdisc was always cheaper than VHS to buy new releases: $79.99-$89.00 list for VHS and $29.99-$39.99 lists for most Laserdiscs but that didn't help Laserdisc because people could rent VHS easier and they already had it.. But Blu-Ray costing a few dollars more than DVD does seem to be big in why the average person doesn't want to upgrade and why it is seen as a format for home theater enthusiast and not the average Joe on the street.

Actually, I think you're the one in denial. Sure, BD didn't replace DVD in many homes as the dominant disc video format. However, you don't generate 28M in revenue per week being a niche market. BD is a smaller market than DVD, but it isn't small by any means and is beyond just the home theater enthusiast being the consumer of blu-ray discs.

 

[Rick Thompson]

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.

Have you been watching the trends in computers? Unless you're getting a power laptop, optical drives are becoming rare in non-desktop computers. Even software companies are offloading the expense of making a disk onto your ISP data charges (without decreasing the price, of course!).


As for UHD disks, they will almost certainly be either for catalog releases or very recent films. Things shot digitally, say, 10 years ago (ex: Star Wars 2 and 3) aren't high enough resolution. The HDW-F900 that George Lucas used is 1920x1080p resolution according to the Sony website. Film, as we all know, only needs a new scan at the higher resolutions, but those digitally-shot films, like the television series shot on videotape, won't benefit from higher-resolution disks.

 

[Vic Pardo]

UHD = Ultra High Definition



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 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.

I appreciate your attempt to explain the enormous differences between your preferred home theater experience and my preferred home theater experience, but I'm really missing something here. I don't understand why people want to replicate the commercial cinema experience in one's living room. 35mm film was not meant to be seen in your apartment. If you're rich enough to have a screening room built that can accommodate 35mm, that's fine, but what run-of-the-mill film fan would want to go to all that trouble in their living room just to watch a film every night? TV broadcasts, VHS tapes and DVDs were not meant to replicate that experience, nor should they. Just as LPs and CDs are not meant to replicate the experience of hearing a symphony orchestra live. That's what concert halls are for. Do you want recordings to sound like there's a live orchestra in your living room? What the hell would the neighbors say?


I have a 32-inch Sony Bravia in my living room. Given the size of my living room, that's as big as I want it. Any bigger and it would be way too glaring. I get uncomfortable from the heat of the TV whenever I get up to change discs and I turn the TV off as soon as I'm done watching something.


Only occasionally do I see something on Blu-ray that stands out as a greatly improved viewing experience. THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD (1938) was more spectacular than any previous home format I'd seen it on. I've got two Shaw Bros. movies that I've seen on Blu-ray and on R3 DVD and the Blu-rays are great. But THE GETAWAY (1972)? Not so much. IRON MONKEY (1993)? Not that big a difference. A few years ago, I wanted to see THE WILD BUNCH again (after many years since the last time I'd watched it--on DVD), so I pulled the first copy I could find, my letter-boxed VHS edition. I watched it on the 13-inch VCR combo and enjoyed it as much as I ever have. It looked and sounded fine to me. Well this past year, I picked up a Blu-ray of it and watched that. For some reason, it wasn't clicking with me and it took me multiple sessions to watch the whole thing. Was I simply tired of the film after all these years (having seen it between 20 and 30 times since 1969, mostly in theaters)? Or was there something lacking in the Blu-ray experience? I'm not sure. I need to check THE SEARCHERS next. It's been years since I've seen it and I'm not sure what the last format I watched it in was. I have it on DVD and Blu-ray and I'd like to watch both just to compare.


On the other hand, there are many times when I'm actually exhilarated watching something on VHS, as with the kung fu films I mentioned in my earlier post. I even have many of my older J-pop concerts on VHS and I really enjoy watching some of them in that format (they're not the ones I have on Blu-ray). There are times when I can't help but look for a VHS to watch because that's what I want to see. I can't explain why, other than maybe my brain is just wired to respond more strongly to analog media than digital. I recently re-watched YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE on DVD and it hurt my eyes. Something was wrong with it. I need to dig out my original VHS copy, which I remember as being quite good, and compare the two.

 

[Dr Griffin]

I appreciate your attempt to explain the enormous differences between your preferred home theater experience and my preferred home theater experience, but I'm really missing something here. I don't understand why people want to replicate the commercial cinema experience in one's living room. 35mm film was not meant to be seen in your apartment. If you're rich enough to have a screening room built that can accommodate 35mm, that's fine, but what run-of-the-mill film fan would want to go to all that trouble in their living room just to watch a film every night? TV broadcasts, VHS tapes and DVDs were not meant to replicate that experience, nor should they. Just as LPs and CDs are not meant to replicate the experience of hearing a symphony orchestra live. That's what concert halls are for. Do you want recordings to sound like there's a live orchestra in your living room? What the hell would the neighbors say?


I have a 32-inch Sony Bravia in my living room. Given the size of my living room, that's as big as I want it. Any bigger and it would be way too glaring. I get uncomfortable from the heat of the TV whenever I get up to change discs and I turn the TV off as soon as I'm done watching something.


Only occasionally do I see something on Blu-ray that stands out as a greatly improved viewing experience. THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD (1938) was more spectacular than any previous home format I'd seen it on. I've got two Shaw Bros. movies that I've seen on Blu-ray and on R3 DVD and the Blu-rays are great. But THE GETAWAY (1972)? Not so much. IRON MONKEY (1993)? Not that big a difference. A few years ago, I wanted to see THE WILD BUNCH again (after many years since the last time I'd watched it--on DVD), so I pulled the first copy I could find, my letter-boxed VHS edition. I watched it on the 13-inch VCR combo and enjoyed it as much as I ever have. It looked and sounded fine to me. Well this past year, I picked up a Blu-ray of it and watched that. For some reason, it wasn't clicking with me and it took me multiple sessions to watch the whole thing. Was I simply tired of the film after all these years (having seen it between 20 and 30 times since 1969, mostly in theaters)? Or was there something lacking in the Blu-ray experience? I'm not sure. I need to check THE SEARCHERS next. It's been years since I've seen it and I'm not sure what the last format I watched it in was. I have it on DVD and Blu-ray and I'd like to watch both just to compare.


On the other hand, there are many times when I'm actually exhilarated watching something on VHS, as with the kung fu films I mentioned in my earlier post. I even have many of my older J-pop concerts on VHS and I really enjoy watching some of them in that format (they're not the ones I have on Blu-ray). There are times when I can't help but look for a VHS to watch because that's what I want to see. I can't explain why, other than maybe my brain is just wired to respond more strongly to analog media than digital. I recently re-watched YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE on DVD and it hurt my eyes. Something was wrong with it. I need to dig out my original VHS copy, which I remember as being quite good, and compare the two.

Strange post for a site called Home Theater Forum.

Of course we're not all alike, but you have to admit that Blu-ray has gotten us closer to the look of film in the home than any other video format. The experts and leading filmmakers agree on this too. You can't understand why people would want to replicate the theater experience in their home? I find that question extremely curious on a forum like this. Not everybody is a presentation lover, while all of us, I would think, are movie lovers, and seeing them as close to the way the filmmaker intended is not an extraordinary goal. Video is only a reproduction of film, the way a LP or CD is a reproduction of a live musical event. I have read and heard people say that they have reproduced the sound of a certain concert hall in their home with recordings made at that certain venue with high levels of accuracy (having been to the concert hall numerous times and tweaking their system countless times to get the reproduction as close as possible). What's wrong with that, other than maybe a little crazy?

 

[Vic Pardo]

I've always lived in apartments with living rooms that were too small to try to replicate the "commercial cinema experience." I've always been less concerned with the technical aspects than with how I feel when I watch something and there are so many factors that can change that experience. I remember once seeing SPARTACUS in a small auditorium where the programmer had only been able to find a seriously cut 35mm print and had to supplement it with scenes from a pan-and-scan 16mm print inserted at the moments where they belonged in the narrative. It was my first time seeing it on the big screen and I loved it. Years later I saw the restored version on 70mm at New York's Ziegfeld Theater and, for some strange reason, I was curiously unmoved. I don't know why. In later years, watching kung fu films on bootleg VHS was exciting because I was truly exploring and discovering this genre seriously for the first time. When restored, remastered DVDs of these same films came out, sometimes it made a difference, sometimes the experience wasn't quite as memorable as that first viewing.


I used to have a 13-inch Emerson color TV (CRT) that I enjoyed watching things on. The color and the sharpness of the image were better than anything else I'd watched stuff on up to that point. When that finally stopped working, it took a lot of the enjoyment of home viewing away. I then got a Sony CRT set that was either 20-inches or 26-inches, I can't recall which, but it wasn't as good. When I first contemplated buying a widescreen TV, the ones being offered were CRT and I really wanted to get one like that, but when I finally made the plunge--in 2007--the widescreen CRT TVs had all been replaced by flatscreen TVs. When I first got my Sony Bravia, I was appalled at how bad most VHS tapes looked on it and some DVDs. Not sure what happened after that. Maybe I fixed the settings somehow or maybe I just got used to it.

 

[Thomas T]

I've always been less concerned with the technical aspects than with how I feel when I watch something

While viewing a film as close as possible to the original look and sound is the ideal, I find that too many HTFers are obsessed to the point that the film itself takes second place to how it looks. The fact that the colors may be faded, there are scratches here and there, it's open matte instead of framed to 1.66, mono instead of stereo etc. suddenly become moot when I get lost in the story, the acting, the music, the "art" of the film. To many it would be a deal breaker, a "no sale". Given a choice of watching Horrible Bosses 2 in a pristine 4K transfer or Detour in a scratchy no contrast public domain transfer, there's no question which I'd choose! A bad movie is still a bad movie no matter how good it looks and a good movie will survive a bad print.

 

[Dr Griffin]

"How was the movie?"

" Oh, the movie? I - I don't know now that you mention it, but it looked and sounded fantastic!"

 

[Dave Moritz]

There are some that brought up niche formats so this is about as niche as it gets I guess.


Digital Compact Cassette
View attachment 20190

VHD

CED

Beta

ElCaset

1/4" analog tape








Hopefully we will get more classic titles to 1080p blu-ray and we will have to wait and see what movies come out, what players come out and how well sales do for UHD at the end of the year and next year. Still hoping to see a good list of titles and want to see it in action at a local retailer. Amazing how far home entertainment has come!

 

[Vic Pardo]

I'd like to add that certain films lend themselves to Blu-ray better than others, to my eyes at least. I'd previously seen REBIRTH OF MOTHRA (1996), only on bootlegged, fan-subbed VHS, so when I saw a Blu-ray set of that film and its two sequels for under $10 I snatched it up. I was knocked out by the visuals in this one, mostly achieved via miniatures and mechanical effects and some optical mattes done in a film lab, but only a small amount of CGI at all. And I'm someone who prefers those kinds of effects to CGI in most cases anyway.


Here are some shots I took of the Blu-ray image:














A lovely movie, too, if aimed more at kids than hardcore kaiju fans.