Upgrading DVD to Bluray movies.

[Smokey]

The poll question is simple:

Suppose that price of Bluray movies were same as regular DVDs and you own a bluray player, would you replace the DVD you already own with Bluray version of it?

For me, I probably would replace some big block buster movies that love such as Star Wars or Godfather (may be 5 to 10% of collection), but for most part the answers probably would be negative.

I recently sold half of my DVD collection at considerable lost, so no matter how good a movie is, its watchability factor does diminish over time after repeated viewing.

[eisforelectronic]

A small part of me is a bit upset when I slide a DVD into the PS3. That same part of me is smiling whenever a Blu-Ray disc goes in.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Well, I only have three DVD movies; the rest are concert DVD's, and the only movie I'd consider replacing is Batman Begins. Theoretically I qualify for choices A & B don't I?

[kexodusc]

I can't wait to get a copy of my Wicker Park DVD in BluRay, or to witness Hot Shots Part Deux in all its high-def glory.

Naww..I'm in the same boat as you Smokey, most of my DVD's are bargain bin specials. I'm quite happy with DVD quality. Unlike VHS quality, I don't feel the need to upgrade them all. I have (by Ar.com terms a modest) 200+ DVD's too so at $20 a pop or more I doubt I could talk my wife into it.

But for sure, I'll buy yet even another version of The Godfather and Star Wars.

[Smokey]

Well, I only have three DVD movies; the rest are concert DVD's, and the only movie I'd consider replacing is Batman Begins. Theoretically I qualify for choices A & B don't I?

With only three DVDs, you might also qualify for choice C also :D

As your DVD inventory increases, suddenly you realize that one don't need Cable any more (I canceled my subscription with Comcast) to enjoy television. I had Cinemax for 6 months, and notice that every few months they recycle the same movies. So if you have alot of DVDs, having Cable seem to be waste of money.

And sure don't miss loud commercials on basic Cable either :)

Eisforelectronic seem to be only one voting for A (so far). And Kex's DVD collection habit is eeringly similar to mine. He must hang around the same stores as I do :cool:

[Rich-n-Texas]

I voted B since I don't know that from here on out I'll be buying BD titles exclusively.

[L.J.]

I voted for replacing 5%. I may go higher than that though. I'm up to about 50 or so BR and maybe 15-20% of that has replaced a DVD. I sold some of the DVD copies for $5 each so it wasn't a huge lost. The animation I keep and put the DVD copy in my kids room and some of the movies I'm just gonna keep to view in the car or on my laptop while on vacation or something like that. I also let friends and family borrow some of these.

[L.J.]

With only three DVDs, you might also qualify for choice C also :D

As your DVD inventory increases, suddenly you realize that one don't need Cable any more (I canceled my subscription with Comcast) to enjoy television. I had Cinemax for 6 months, and notice that every few months they recycle the same movies. So if you have alot of DVDs, having Cable seem to be waste of money.

And sure don't miss loud commercials on basic Cable either :)

Eisforelectronic seem to be only one voting for A (so far). And Kex's DVD collection habit is eeringly similar to mine. He must hang around the same stores as I do :cool:

I feel you on that. I'm considering dropping my HBO/Starz package because they keep playing the same movies. I also noticed that the on demand library stays the same as well. I use on demand mainly for my kids to watch movies but after several months, the same movies are still up there.

[Auricauricle]

I'm a nearsighted old coot, so I will be happy with the DVD's, thank you very much...

Smokey, your experience reminds me when I went CD-Crazy in Tokyo, back in '84 and '85: I went through a spell of buying and swapping. Now some of the things I swapped are either no longer available or are found only in the most obscure places. Some of them are considered somewhat collectible, so there you are....

So, I guess what I am saying is, better make darn sure that you don't cut off yer nose to spite yer face when you make the Blue-Ray plunge....

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I have already replaced more than 10 percent of my 2500+ DVD already, and still going strong. I intend on replacing every DVD that is released on bluray in the future.

When it comes to my hobby, I do not worry much about how much things cost, or how much money I lose when I sell something. I like having a library of movies, so I never rent, I buy. Bluray and HD DVD have finally made my expensive investment in equipment worthwhile, and I am going to milk it for all its worth.

[Woochifer]

Smoke, you gotta keep you crucial thing in mind -- the vast majority of the home video market is new releases, and that's where most of Blu-ray's revenue will come from.

Even the DVD format, which created a whole new generation of video collectors, made most of its money on new releases rather than catalog titles. This was the reason why I thought Blu-ray would win out over HD-DVD (i.e., Blu-ray's superior studio support, and thus more attractive selection of new releases).

That's also why I don't see a big rush to upgrade DVD collections to Blu-ray. Blu-ray will eventually supplant the DVD by simple attrition -- people looking to replace broken DVD players will buy a Blu-ray player, and in turn they will begin buying/renting their movies in Blu-ray rather than DVD. This process doesn't necessarily include wholesale replacement of DVD collections, since nearly all DVD collections began less than 10 years ago.

[E-Stat]

Suppose that price of Bluray movies were same as regular DVDs and you own a bluray player, would you replace the DVD you already own with Bluray version of it?
Yes, but for me the magnitude of that response is very different. I have maybe 50 or so movies on DVD and perhaps 100 on VHS tapes. We have a Netflix account for that. Unlike music, I just don't enjoy watching many movies over and over.

rw

[Smokey]

I sold some of the DVD copies for $5 each so it wasn't a huge lost.

You're lucky. The most I could get for my DVDs was about $1 each. Sold abot 100 totles, and guy said he will buy them whole sale for $100. But not complaining since only paid about $5 for each DVD, and rather see somebody else enjoy them than sitting in closet collecting dust and hogging space.


So, I guess what I am saying is, better make darn sure that you don't cut off yer nose to spite yer face when you make the Blue-Ray plunge.

Some times one can not suppress their impulse buying habit :D

I do most time buy on impulse since in bargain bins you have be fast or somebody else will get it. But don't unwrap it till I do search on net on its picture quaity, extras and viewing values. And then make up my mind whether to keep it or not. Usually return about 25% of unwraped DVD back to store.


[I have already replaced more than 10 percent of my 2500+ DVD already, and still going strong. I intend on replacing every DVD that is released on bluray in the future.

In your line of work, that make sense. 2500 DVDs are alot and since you said you don't care about how much a movie cost, that seem like a huge chunk of money spend on DVDs, and probably on future bluray purchases.


Even the DVD format, which created a whole new generation of video collectors, made most of its money on new releases rather than catalog titles.

I don't necessary agree with statement. From my own experience, I dumped my VHS collection as soon as DVD became affordable and start collecting DVDs. Matter of fact, over 75% of my movie collection is from pre DVD era.

[Smokey]

Yes, but for me the magnitude of that response is very different. I have maybe 50 or so movies on DVD and perhaps 100 on VHS tapes.

rw

Think I need to put together a new poll just for you :D

Problem with VHS is whether you play them or not, they will deteriorate over time. So you might consider yourself lucky that you probably can jump from VHS to Bluray and skip the DVD in between.

[Ajani]

That's also why I don't see a big rush to upgrade DVD collections to Blu-ray. Blu-ray will eventually supplant the DVD by simple attrition -- people looking to replace broken DVD players will buy a Blu-ray player, and in turn they will begin buying/renting their movies in Blu-ray rather than DVD.

Yep, that's pretty much what I intend to do... when my no name cheapo DVD player stops working or maybe a bit before, I'll dump it and get a Blu-ray player...

[Woochifer]

I don't necessary agree with statement. From my own experience, I dumped my VHS collection as soon as DVD became affordable and start collecting DVDs. Matter of fact, over 75% of my movie collection is from pre DVD era.

It's not what you agree with, it's what the sales figures say. The home video market, like the movie theater market, is driven by new releases. New releases have the highest unit sales, and they command the highest list prices. DVD titles generally become progressively less valuable over time.

Week in and week out, the top selling DVD titles are new releases -- that's a pattern that dates back to the VHS days. Except for the occasional blockbuster catalog releases like Star Wars and The Godfather, the top selling DVD titles of all time are nearly all new releases. The top selling DVD of all time is Finding Nemo. The reason is pretty simple -- new video releases have never been on home video before and people haven't seen those movies multiple times already on TV or other video formats.

Movie collecting became commonplace with the DVD because the format went with sell-through pricing on the day of release, rather than the old VHS rental-pricing window (i.e., new releases are priced at ~$80-$100, and then lowered to ~$20 a few months later). You won't see a wholesale surge of people transitioning their entire DVD library over to Blu-ray, because most DVDs purchased were new releases, and frankly many of those movies aren't good enough to warrant a rebuy.

Or put another way, how many Wal-Mart bin specials are worth buying again on Blu-ray? :cool:

[nightflier]

Suppose that price of Bluray movies were same as regular DVDs.

The only BR movies I see coming down in price are the crappy Walmart discount bin ones and frankly, people don't want those, they want new releases. And doesn't it cost more to make a BR disk? Personally, I think rentals and downloads will fill the need for most people well before even half our movie collections are BR.

[Smokey]

It's not what you agree with, it's what the sales figures say. The home video market, like the movie theater market, is driven by new releases. New releases have the highest unit sales, and they command the highest list prices. DVD titles generally become progressively less valuable over time.

Week in and week out, the top selling DVD titles are new releases -- that's a pattern that dates back to the VHS days. Except for the occasional blockbuster catalog releases like Star Wars and The Godfather, the top selling DVD titles of all time are nearly all new releases.

That seem logical and normal, but there are only so many new releases a week.

Let say that we have 10 new major movie releases a week which add up about 500 titles a year. And lest say that majority of DVD sold were mew release which date back to 10 year ago when DVd was launched. That would only make it 5000 titles.

Given that there are catalog of 100,000 DVD titles, how can movie studio make more money on 5000 titles than 95,000 titles? Given that new titles cost about $15, I think majority of buyers wait till price drop to around $10 before making the purchase. And 5000 titles for $10 does not yield significant revenue compare with 95,000 titles which sell about $7.50 (Walmart average price on most DVD).

So suggesting that home video market is mostly driven by new releases somehow does not add up :)


Personally, I think rentals and downloads will fill the need for most people well before even half our movie collections are BR.

I don’t know about renting, but IMO downloading HD movies still have quite way to go to be a viable alternative BR. Video compression and Internet bottle necking are two major obstacle to over come for down loading to be an attractive option.

[Ajani]

I don’t know about renting, but IMO downloading HD movies still have quite way to go to be a viable alternative BR. Video compression and Internet bottle necking are two major obstacle to over come for down loading to be an attractive option.

Sad but true... Just look at the lack of success of AppleTV, which seems to get a lot of bashing for poor quality videos.... Interestingly, many people regard it as one of the best music servers available (check out the newsletters on PS Audio's website), despite being crap for downloading movies/TV shows....

Most people are unwilling to spend big change on a massive LCD/Plasma HD display.. and then play low quality downloaded video on it...

[Smokey]

Most people are unwilling to spend big change on a massive LCD/Plasma HD display.. and then play low quality downloaded video on it...

Some of download material do look so washed out on my 17 inch monter, so can't imagine how it would look on big screen TVs. And the audio is not too far behind in term of quality either.

I think web site get charged by thei carrie on how much bandwidth they use, so it only make commom businees sense for video web sites to compress their video streamong to minimze their throughput.

[Woochifer]

That seem logical and normal, but there are only so many new releases a week.

Let say that we have 10 new major movie releases a week which add up about 500 titles a year. And lest say that majority of DVD sold were mew release which date back to 10 year ago when DVd was launched. That would only make it 5000 titles.

Given that there are catalog of 100,000 DVD titles, how can movie studio make more money on 5000 titles than 95,000 titles? Given that new titles cost about $15, I think majority of buyers wait till price drop to around $10 before making the purchase. And 5000 titles for $10 does not yield significant revenue compare with 95,000 titles which sell about $7.50 (Walmart average price on most DVD).

So suggesting that home video market is mostly driven by new releases somehow does not add up :)

Like I said, it's not about what you think adds up, but what actually adds up in the market. You're simply ignoring the magnitude by which the top selling titles outsell the rest of the available titles. This is no different than the music industry, which releases thousands of titles annually, yet the majority of their sales comes from only a small group of best selling titles, nearly all of which are new releases.

The weekly sales charts published by Nielson Videoscan illustrate how great the magnitude of difference is between the new releases and the catalog releases. And every article I've ever read on this subject indicates that new releases are the most important revenue generator for the studios.

The #1 selling video title in any given week is almost always a new release, and more often than not, that title outsells the #2 title by a magnitude of 3X, 4X, or even 10X. Go further down the list, you might find the top selling title outselling the #10 title by 10x, or even 50x or more.

On any given week, new releases make up the majority of the top selling DVD titles. This week's top 10 selling DVDs includes ZERO catalog titles, it's all new releases. And dating back over the past five years, you'd be hardpressed to find any week with more than two or three catalog titles ranked in the top 10 in any given week.

Also consider that a hit title like Finding Nemo sold upwards of 40 million copies on DVD, about half of that total during the first week of release. Warner would be happy if any of their classic DVD reissues sell 100,000 copies, yet Finding Nemo alone sells 400X that amount. The Spider-Man and Lord of the Rings titles each sold over 20 million copies, and now you have seven titles ALONE outselling the equivalent of 1,600 catalog releases (and that's using an optimistic assumption of 100k in sales for a catalog reissue). Add the other new releases that come out on a weekly basis that routinely outsell the catalog releases by orders of magnitude, and suddenly the math begins to add up in a hurry.

Your market assumption about people waiting until prices drop down to $10 before sales take off is just flat out wrong. Just like movies will typically make 30-50% of their total box office take during the first weekend, the same holds true for DVD releases -- new releases tend to have their highest sales totals during the first week and drop off every week thereafter.

The reason why DVD prices drop down to $10 in the first place is because they NO LONGER sell well, and the studio or retailer needs to move inventory. Think about it, if demand is at its peak, why would prices drop at that time? And when prices drop down to that $10 price point, when you have ever seen that title in the top 10?

[musicman1999]

I have replaced some, such as 2001, and will replace some more, George you are getting my money again, but i doubt any one will be able to replace all of our dvd collection as i don.t think all films will make it to bluray.


bill

[bobsticks]

I'm with bill and prolly the rest of the pack. I'll replace the classics...the one's that'll get repeated viewings.

OTOH, if Blu-Ray Audio takes off and there are re-releases in Hi-Rez formats I would be more likely to bite, provided that I heard a consistent and substantial increase in quality.

[s dog]

The poll question is simple:

Suppose that price of Bluray movies were same as regular DVDs and you own a bluray player, would you replace the DVD you already own with Bluray version of it?

For me, I probably would replace some big block buster movies that love such as Star Wars or Godfather (may be 5 to 10% of collection), but for most part the answers probably would be negative.

I recently sold half of my DVD collection at considerable lost, so no matter how good a movie is, its watchability factor does diminish over time after repeated viewing.
I would at lest replace my lotr and all my harry potter movies, batman and a few others.

[Smokey]

Thanks Musicman, Bobstick and S dog for chiming in. The result of poll seem to indicate that most viewers will replace some of titles with BR, but not all. It seem I am not in minority group :)

Wooch thanks for long and informative post. Guess I am in minority when it come to buying new titles for full price since get more kick out of finding movies on sale or bargain prices.

But I swear I see more people around the bargain bins than around new release DVD titles bins in the store :D

[nightflier]

I've found that the least expensive way to get new releases is to buy them used. Yes, there's a lot of bootlegged junk out there, but I've lined up a few fav sellers who've consistently provided near-new quality "new releases" (so I have to wait a few days); and they will be getting my repeat business. As for BR, I've got the PS3 sitting in my TV room, and well, since the rest of my gear isn't capable of 1080p, it's just been sitting there. It's a fine upconverting DVD player, I suppose, but right now I'm not ready to move in that direction yet. Decent game player, tho....

What Wooch said is also a bit discouraging since there are many movies I wouldn't mind seeing in BR (i.e. foreign films), but they likely won't make it there. So when I do make the move to BR, I suppose I'll buy new releases in that format instead of the DVD ones, no sense in not buying the latest if you have the gear. But this brings me back to what I said before, there is very little chance that people will be able to replace their whole collections with BR versions - the economics of re-releasing just won't permit it.

I'll also second what 'Sticks was saying: BR music, particularly formats like DTS MA - this is definitely intriguing to me. I've invested a lot in SACD over the years and the fact that there are no Universal BR players out there is pissing me off. I'm going to guess that the hi-def music industry is being pulled into to many format directions right now with no clear winner in sight. I also think they see BR as primarily a movie format and that they don't see BR becoming a music-only medium, at least not a profitable one. Ironically I've always kept my SACD player in my HT rack, even though the format has no video support - now it's that very video support that is keeping music-only BR from being considered viable.

As a side note, I also have a nice collection of concert DVDs, many of them far from likely to get a BR make-over because those bands just aren't going to compete with the new release numbers of Maria Carey and Hanna Montana (although the Legends of Jazz Showcase release is getting my hopes up). So what Wooch was saying about new releases trumping catalog releases, is exponentially true in the music sub-category. And if you're a poor shmuck who happens to like Jazz, classical, or foreign music well best of luck to ya.

And this brings me back to the threat to BR of downloads. This is especially the case with music since I see a lot of initiatives to offer high-res music from respected distributors. For those of us who already don't buy top-40 pop, we're already prepared to look elsewhere than the Target & BB music isles to get our music. Granted, it takes a long time to download a completely uncompressed symphony (I don't particularly enjoy the wait), but once I've downloaded it, I can recall it much faster than pulling out a CD, or an LP for that matter. Anyhow, I've gotten into the habit of creating download lists and queue things up to be downloaded in batches when I'm not around. I just don't see this as being very different from doing the same thing with movies. Yes, very little is available now, and no BR quality movies are available yet, but it's quite possible that hi-res music downloads will create a culture that will embrace this. Judging by how much people love NetFlix and Blockbuster, I think this is just around the corner. Maybe it's just the MP/RIAA that's keeping this from happening?

Is this the reason I am still on the fence about BR? You betcha. I'll be the first to extol the virtues of owning a tangible disk (yes, especially vinyl), but I'm too poor to jump with both feet into a format that may be supplanted very soon. The difficulties of replacing my movie collection with BR versions notwithstanding, the potential for new releases being all BR in my home is not certain at all.

[Woochifer]

I've found that the least expensive way to get new releases is to buy them used. Yes, there's a lot of bootlegged junk out there, but I've lined up a few fav sellers who've consistently provided near-new quality "new releases" (so I have to wait a few days); and they will be getting my repeat business.

That's definitely one way to go. Typically, I will buy them new the week of release, since most vendors have them on special at that time. The ones I don't like, I'll then sell to the stores that sell used DVDs.


As for BR, I've got the PS3 sitting in my TV room, and well, since the rest of my gear isn't capable of 1080p, it's just been sitting there. It's a fine upconverting DVD player, I suppose, but right now I'm not ready to move in that direction yet. Decent game player, tho....

I thought you already had a HDTV. If so, it doesn't really matter that you don't have 1080p, given that the PS3 will also output at 720p and 1080i. Either way, BR will be a big step up from upconverted DVD.


What Wooch said is also a bit discouraging since there are many movies I wouldn't mind seeing in BR (i.e. foreign films), but they likely won't make it there. So when I do make the move to BR, I suppose I'll buy new releases in that format instead of the DVD ones, no sense in not buying the latest if you have the gear. But this brings me back to what I said before, there is very little chance that people will be able to replace their whole collections with BR versions - the economics of re-releasing just won't permit it.

I did not predict that the studios would pare back on their catalog releases ... only that I don't see the same uptake in demand that we had with the DVD with catalog titles. In actuality, if Blu-ray takes off in a big way, that gives more incentive to the studios to unload their film libraries. They are already in the process of rescanning their film libraries in HD, since they have to do that anyway for HDTV broadcasts and archiving. The success of new releases on Blu-ray will support the studios' archiving efforts.


I'll also second what 'Sticks was saying: BR music, particularly formats like DTS MA - this is definitely intriguing to me. I've invested a lot in SACD over the years and the fact that there are no Universal BR players out there is pissing me off. I'm going to guess that the hi-def music industry is being pulled into to many format directions right now with no clear winner in sight. I also think they see BR as primarily a movie format and that they don't see BR becoming a music-only medium, at least not a profitable one. Ironically I've always kept my SACD player in my HT rack, even though the format has no video support - now it's that very video support that is keeping music-only BR from being considered viable.

It's not about Blu-ray being a music-only format. Blu-ray's importance rests with its high resolution audio that can simultaneously execute Java-based applications and output the digital audio stream via HDMI. SACD is handicapped by its hackneyed copy protection scheme, and the lack of native support for DSD on outboard processors.


As a side note, I also have a nice collection of concert DVDs, many of them far from likely to get a BR make-over because those bands just aren't going to compete with the new release numbers of Maria Carey and Hanna Montana (although the Legends of Jazz Showcase release is getting my hopes up). So what Wooch was saying about new releases trumping catalog releases, is exponentially true in the music sub-category. And if you're a poor shmuck who happens to like Jazz, classical, or foreign music well best of luck to ya.

Just because the market is driven by new releases does not mean that catalog titles won't continue to come out. Keep in mind that the DVD market was also driven by new releases, yet plenty of older titles continue to come out in all genres. All you need is a large installed user base, and the demand will be there. It doesn't take a huge number of units sold for a title to remain in print (not sure about home video, but the rule of thumb threshold for keeping CD titles in print was approximately 1,000 units/year). And if the DVD master was already transferred from a high definition archive, then you don't even need to create a new master -- it's just a new transfer using either H.264 or VC-1.

With jazz and classical titles in particular I can see plenty of uptake, because not only do you have the higher video resolution, but you also have 5.1 audio with 192/24 resolution possible.


And this brings me back to the threat to BR of downloads. This is especially the case with music since I see a lot of initiatives to offer high-res music from respected distributors. For those of us who already don't buy top-40 pop, we're already prepared to look elsewhere than the Target & BB music isles to get our music. Granted, it takes a long time to download a completely uncompressed symphony (I don't particularly enjoy the wait), but once I've downloaded it, I can recall it much faster than pulling out a CD, or an LP for that matter. Anyhow, I've gotten into the habit of creating download lists and queue things up to be downloaded in batches when I'm not around. I just don't see this as being very different from doing the same thing with movies. Yes, very little is available now, and no BR quality movies are available yet, but it's quite possible that hi-res music downloads will create a culture that will embrace this. Judging by how much people love NetFlix and Blockbuster, I think this is just around the corner. Maybe it's just the MP/RIAA that's keeping this from happening?

The obstacle is simply the public's need for instant gratification, and the limited pipeline in most household broadband services.

The copy protection issue is keeping a lot of high resolution music out of the download services. Until this issue gets cleared up, the download side will continue to err on the side of "good enough."


Is this the reason I am still on the fence about BR? You betcha. I'll be the first to extol the virtues of owning a tangible disk (yes, especially vinyl), but I'm too poor to jump with both feet into a format that may be supplanted very soon. The difficulties of replacing my movie collection with BR versions notwithstanding, the potential for new releases being all BR in my home is not certain at all.

Since you already have a Blu-ray player, the transition is pretty simple. The only obstacle would be if you currently watch DVDs in different places, and like to transport the discs around. Then, the choice would be whether you want to optimize your viewing for one location or if you'd rather have the transportability.

[nightflier]

I thought you already had a HDTV. If so, it doesn't really matter that you don't have 1080p, given that the PS3 will also output at 720p and 1080i. Either way, BR will be a big step up from upconverted DVD.

Ah, yes, but not all HDTVs are created equal. I was one of the first suckers to jump on the HDTV bandwagon and I bought too early (hence the reason I'm now much more careful). I have a Panasonic CRT that has several shortcomings:

- It's supposed to be 42", but really is only about 39" across
- It does not have a built-in HDTV tuner
- It only has component video inputs
- It does not support 720p

That last one is the killer, because even though I can get it to display 1080i using my Samsung HDTV tuner, it doesn't work with the PS3. While I have the component A/V cable, for some reason my TV will not display the 1080i signal (could be an HDCP thing, i dunno). So the best it can do is 480p, and then what's the point of buying or renting BR movies for me? I should also mention that when viewing standard DVDs, my current DVD player looks better than the PS3. And what's with the stupid remote nonsense, anyhow? Some marketing guy should have been fired over that asinine decision.


if Blu-ray takes off in a big way, that gives more incentive to the studios to unload their film libraries. They are already in the process of rescanning their film libraries in HD, since they have to do that anyway for HDTV broadcasts and archiving. The success of new releases on Blu-ray will support the studios' archiving efforts.

Yes, but the big "if" here is that BR would have to "take off in a big way." I think other delivery mediums are nipping at BR's heels.


It's not about Blu-ray being a music-only format. Blu-ray's importance rests with its high resolution audio that can simultaneously execute Java-based applications and output the digital audio stream via HDMI.

I don't think those who want to listen to a disk w/o having to plug in a TV to get the darned thing to play are interested in simultaneous Java-based applications. Interactivity via a video interface isn't wanted here.


Just because the market is driven by new releases does not mean that catalog titles won't continue to come out. Keep in mind that the DVD market was also driven by new releases, yet plenty of older titles continue to come out in all genres. All you need is a large installed user base, and the demand will be there. It doesn't take a huge number of units sold for a title to remain in print (not sure about home video, but the rule of thumb threshold for keeping CD titles in print was approximately 1,000 units/year). And if the DVD master was already transferred from a high definition archive, then you don't even need to create a new master -- it's just a new transfer using either H.264 or VC-1.

This still requires a certain threshold. Many titles just won't reach those market-profitable numbers. Take one of my favs, Buena Vista Social Club - will it ever appear on BR? I know it has sold more than 1000 units, perhaps even in its first year, but the chances of this nationally acclaimed bestseller title appearing on BR are slim. The same could be said for my RATM, JL Hooker, Floyd, or anything classical. Yes, I can find the Stones, Incubus, and Celine Dion, but let's be frank, it's slim pickins.


With jazz and classical titles in particular I can see plenty of uptake, because not only do you have the higher video resolution, but you also have 5.1 audio with 192/24 resolution possible.

You would think, but that's just not the case right now. I actually believe there is more interest in the high-def download services from companies like Naxos and Chandos, then in the BR medium.

I will even go out on a limb and suggest that BR is seen by audiophiles as a popular/maintream/average-consumer product that does not address the needs of music enthusiasts, especially those who listen to classical, foreign, and/or jazz. The fact that it is entirely a video-dominated product (the opposite of SACD), only re-enforces that belief.


The obstacle is simply the public's need for instant gratification, and the limited pipeline in most household broadband services.

I think the Netflix model disproves that. It has been hugely popular and it involves queuing up and waiting for one's entertainment to arrive. The culture of queuing and waiting is already here - downloading will actually be faster in the very near future.


The copy protection issue is keeping a lot of high resolution music out of the download services. Until this issue gets cleared up, the download side will continue to err on the side of "good enough."

That I agree with. But that is also keeping downloads of movies out of the mainstream. The studios are all too happy that the US does not have the download speeds that the Japanese have and it's my guess that they are actively working to keep it that way as long as possible. This is a perfect example of profit trumping technology.

I've also been saying for years that distributors should offer low-quality (128kb/s MP3 or less) but complete music for free as samples, and then make the customers pay for the higher-quality music. Back when Napster was all the rage, it was 128kb/s files that dominated the medium - had they capped it at that, the whole debate would now be over. Unfortunately, this has not been the view of the distributors and dim-minded artists like Metallica, Bono, Madona, and Dre.


Since you already have a Blu-ray player, the transition is pretty simple. The only obstacle would be if you currently watch DVDs in different places, and like to transport the discs around. Then, the choice would be whether you want to optimize your viewing for one location or if you'd rather have the transportability.

I only have two rooms with TV, and only one with surround, so I don't need the portability. What I do need is a new TV, pronto. But I've been focusing on my 2-channel audio system lately, so this has been relegated to the back-burner.

The PS3, by the way, I'm borrowing from my cousin because he prefers his Xbox (with HD-DVD player and lots of cheap movies) and has little use for his PS3 right now - funny how that works. If I did make the move to BR, I'd probably go with one of the new Denon players, maybe the Panasonic. Who knows, maybe Oppo might come out with one that will be competitive and as a bonus play SACDs - wouldn't that be a kick in the jewels for the other guys?

[Woochifer]

Ah, yes, but not all HDTVs are created equal. I was one of the first suckers to jump on the HDTV bandwagon and I bought too early (hence the reason I'm now much more careful). I have a Panasonic CRT that has several shortcomings:

- It's supposed to be 42", but really is only about 39" across
- It does not have a built-in HDTV tuner
- It only has component video inputs
- It does not support 720p

That last one is the killer, because even though I can get it to display 1080i using my Samsung HDTV tuner, it doesn't work with the PS3. While I have the component A/V cable, for some reason my TV will not display the 1080i signal (could be an HDCP thing, i dunno). So the best it can do is 480p, and then what's the point of buying or renting BR movies for me? I should also mention that when viewing standard DVDs, my current DVD player looks better than the PS3. And what's with the stupid remote nonsense, anyhow? Some marketing guy should have been fired over that asinine decision.

Have you gotten around to updating the firmware on the PS3? That unit's upscaling and output capability has become probably the most flexible on the market. Sir T just mentioned that the PS3's new noise reduction capabilities have dramatically improved the upscaled DVD image quality.

With a CRT HDTV, the native support is not as much of an issue because CRTs do not use fixed pixels and are therefore much more adept at rescaling than flat panels.



I don't think those who want to listen to a disk w/o having to plug in a TV to get the darned thing to play are interested in simultaneous Java-based applications. Interactivity via a video interface isn't wanted here.

As I've mentioned to you before, nothing precludes Blu-ray disc authors from simply implementing an auto-play option like you had with most DVD-As. Hit play and you hear music -- no video interface needed

But, the interactivity options with Blu-ray are also brand new for any high res audio format, who's to say that this won't change how people choose to listen to their music?


This still requires a certain threshold. Many titles just won't reach those market-profitable numbers. Take one of my favs, Buena Vista Social Club - will it ever appear on BR? I know it has sold more than 1000 units, perhaps even in its first year, but the chances of this nationally acclaimed bestseller title appearing on BR are slim. The same could be said for my RATM, JL Hooker, Floyd, or anything classical. Yes, I can find the Stones, Incubus, and Celine Dion, but let's be frank, it's slim pickins.

Why would you doubt that a hit movie like Buena Vista Social Club (whose soundtrack also went platinum) would make it onto Blu-ray? People were complaining about the "slim pickins" with the DVD as well in its early stages, yet here we are 10 years later with the number of available DVD titles closing in on 90,000.


You would think, but that's just not the case right now. I actually believe there is more interest in the high-def download services from companies like Naxos and Chandos, then in the BR medium.

The first Blu-ray music titles are only beginning to come out, so it's those specialty companies that are issuing the first Blu-ray music titles.


I will even go out on a limb and suggest that BR is seen by audiophiles as a popular/maintream/average-consumer product that does not address the needs of music enthusiasts, especially those who listen to classical, foreign, and/or jazz. The fact that it is entirely a video-dominated product (the opposite of SACD), only re-enforces that belief.

What makes you think that mainstream/average consumers are not "music enthusiasts"?

Once again you're prejudging and artificially segmenting the market based on preconceived stereotypes, despite the fact that Blu-ray has the highest resolution for both video and audio of any format currently available.



I think the Netflix model disproves that. It has been hugely popular and it involves queuing up and waiting for one's entertainment to arrive. The culture of queuing and waiting is already here - downloading will actually be faster in the very near future.

But, queing and waiting is only a small segment of the overall home video market, and if anything that's the first market that would be potentially impacted by downloading. Why do you think Netflix is trying to get its service onto every device out there?

The vast majority of the home video revenue comes from disc media sales, and until the pipelines for average households expands, downloads will remain as irrelevant as they currently are.

[johnny p]

Not to derail here, or add to the temptation, but for those who don't have them, the Amazon "deal of the day" is the 21 Movie collection James Bond films for $96 !!!!!!!! (I already have them on DVD, and hope to replace them all with Blu-ray one day)

[Spancticles]

need more choices
id replace more than 5%
but not most
maybe 50%

[nightflier]

Wooch, when Buena Vista Social Club, which should have met BR's 1000-copies-sold-to-meet-marketability criteria by a wide margin, makes it to BR, then maybe I'll be more optimistic about it. But then that bears the question, why isn't it available on BR yet? Or do Jazz titles need to reach a higher threshold? Maybe those BR folks are anti-jazz?

I'll throw out this morsel: maybe it's because it's got nothing to do with profitability thresholds, but with the movie as a whole. It, like a gazillion other movies out there has a nostalgic quality about it's "lower quality." Kind of like Cassablanca and Rio Bravo. Releasing them on super-high quality audio and video formats serves what purpose, exactly? This is why I maintain that the depth of the BR catalog will never even come close to that of DVD. Even if it just reaches profitability thresholds, the bad publicity from the fans could kill that margin. Remember all those "colorized" B&W movies? was that worth it? Who knows, but I do know you can buy some of these for $3.33 at Albertson's bargain bin.

[Woochifer]

Wooch, when Buena Vista Social Club, which should have met BR's 1000-copies-sold-to-meet-marketability criteria by a wide margin, makes it to BR, then maybe I'll be more optimistic about it. But then that bears the question, why isn't it available on BR yet?

Uh, maybe because the format is only about two years old? It took the DVD format about four years on the market before the installed user base grew large enough for less mainstream niche titles to begin streaming onto the market in earnest. Why would you think Blu-ray's any different?


Or do Jazz titles need to reach a higher threshold? Maybe those BR folks are anti-jazz?

Why would those titles require higher thresholds? Most jazz titles are issued by companies that specialize in issuing niche titles. That presumption would be as absurd as saying that jazz record labels require higher sales thresholds than major labels that issue pop releases.


I'll throw out this morsel: maybe it's because it's got nothing to do with profitability thresholds, but with the movie as a whole. It, like a gazillion other movies out there has a nostalgic quality about it's "lower quality." Kind of like Cassablanca and Rio Bravo. Releasing them on super-high quality audio and video formats serves what purpose, exactly?

Maybe because the companies that issue them see a buck to be made off of releasing them? Maybe because the installed user base for HDTV is now reaching critical mass?

All of the major studios have the rights to massive film libraries that require no more than some remastering and maybe some archival supplemental material to put out on DVD or Blu-ray. Releasing a library title requires minimal investment on the part of the studio, compared to new releases which require much more marketing and contractual clearances.

The approach will vary by studio. Warner tends to do a lot of clean up and remastering, and fill their classic releases with supplemental materials and bonus features. They do that in order to create additional demand for a title, and justify the higher list prices for many of their reissues. Other studios like Paramount tend to put releases out because they can, and will move units by coming in at a low price.

Your point about nostalgia makes no sense whatsoever. If people were nostalgic about lower picture quality, then they would presumably have kept their old VHS copies. And if there was no demand for higher quality releases, then why would Warner bother to issue many of their titles (which includes the classic MGM library) using a costlier transfer process that cleans up the image frame-by-frame?


This is why I maintain that the depth of the BR catalog will never even come close to that of DVD. Even if it just reaches profitability thresholds, the bad publicity from the fans could kill that margin.

Same used to be said of the DVD format compared to VHS. The part that you're ignoring is that HDTVs now comprise the majority of TV sales. The market is moving towards HD resolution, and the DVD does not offer that alternative.

I doubt that people will replace their DVD libraries en masse, but at the same time, the studios are not about to let their film libraries languish if there's an opportunity to move a few thousand units by simply transfering those movies over to Blu-ray. The studios are already remastering their film libraries for eventual HDTV broadcast, and transfering to Blu-ray would be yet another revenue stream to recoup that cost.


Remember all those "colorized" B&W movies? was that worth it? Who knows, but I do know you can buy some of these for $3.33 at Albertson's bargain bin.

What does this have to do with Blu-ray? Colorizing was basically Ted Turner's way of remarketing the MGM film library. He bought the rights to the library, and colorized the films to expand the market for those titles. But, before you go demonizing him for that, keep in mind that he also spent a good sum to restore the negatives (which needs to happen before you can colorize it), and start up the Turner Classic Movies channel, which for years was practically the only TV channel that would show widescreen movies in the letterbox format (and rarely, if ever, showed the colorized versions).

[Feanor]

I voted that I won't replace any DVDs with BluRays but truth is there is probably a handful I will. The bigger issue for me is when I should get a BluRay player and stop spending money on new titles on DVD I'm buying. So the question is >> when do I buy a BR player?

A while back I proposed that BR wouldn't go mass market until player prices dropped below $200. I doubt this will happen in 2008. Let me assert that this isn't a cost-of-production issue, it's a marketing issue. Both equipment manufacturers and content produces are still happy charging premium prices to folks will to pay for the premium product. Maybe this will change in another year or maybe it will never change. The marketers love stratification.

Haha :D Good for Sir T that he he doesn't care what his hobby cost. In principle neither do I, but I'm practically constrainted by lack of cash. Frankly for us an HDTV has got to come before a BR player -- we're still watching a 27" CRT. The wife and I have decided that in our space that a 46" will give us all the size we can use. Half-decent 46" 1080p plazmas have come down to Cdn$1400 or so. I was thinking October-November but now my son is talking PhD -- oh well.

At our house we have a modest collection of 500-600 or so DVDs. Most of these are rubbish bought cheap by my wife or else animé or horror flicks bought by my daughter. I'm trying to discourage purchases especially by my wife. My current viewing strategy is to rent from Zip.ca (like Netflicks); you can't beat $2.50 per movie with three people watching. This week's movie is No Country for Old Men, yum yum.