DVDis dead!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I'm not trying to make more of this than what it is. Some people don't even know you need special programming to receive HD. I had to explain to some what Progressive Scan is let alone updating firmware. Not every single person will not read the manual but it's more than you would admit.

You don't have to read the manual, the instructions are on the website, and you are prompted by the player through every step. Perhaps you should admit that people are smarter than you make them out to be. Every disc comes with an announcement to keep your player updated. You choose to update or not, it is just that simple.

You can call it what you want but when my player won't play a certain movie I call it incompatibility. It's also funny how when I read a lot of the firmware updates it's many times to enable the player to play a certain movie. Even though my fix allowed me to watch Drag Me To Hell, the fix was actually for Babylon AD. Regardless, firmware updates are something that those who own BD players should know about and keep updated. Whether they choose to is up to them.

Once again, you chose a Samsung player, a player who's software coding was poor from the onset, and has to continually be updated to fix that problem. The PS3 has not had a single compatibility problem in the entire 3 years that I have owned it, and the Oppo had the latest firmware upgrade installed when I purchased it. Where you are making a mountain out of a ant hill comes from the fact that when you look at the firmware upgrade page on Bluray.com, most players have had only ONE firmware upgrade released, not many as you are trying to allude to. Not one firmware upgrade in 2009 was for compatibility issues, NOT ONE!

If any one made a mountain from a mole hil it's you and Wooch. You act like Blu-ray is totally perfect and nothing negative can be said. Actually, admitting there are firmware updates isn't even a negative. But it is part of ownership of one and you denying it don't make it any less so.

On the flip side - you act as if Bluray was so flawed that average consumers will pause before buying or not buy it at all. I say this is BS big time. Anyone who owns a computer knows how to install a patch, especially Windows users. It is no big deal anymore except to computer illiterate individuals, or people who enjoy complaining about everything. The Bluray format is much more sophisticated than the DVD format by a long way. To expect a machine as complicated as a Bluray player to work perfectly out of the box is profoundly unreasonable. Having the ability to upgrade the player in the field is a plus, not a minus. If we didn't have that ability, then HD on disc would have been delayed for years trying to chase perfection out of the box.

Your insistence that a player MUST have the firmware upgrade to play is pretty disingenious. My best friend uses his Panasonic player every day, and he has never installed the latest upgrade, and it plays discs just fine. I have a Sony BDP-S300 I use for pulling screenshots for reviews that has never been upgraded, and it has played hundreds of disc flawlessly. If it ain't broke, don't fix it is smart advice. To make a big deal out of a single firmware upgrade per player is nothing more than crying over a teaspoon of spilled milk.

[Woochifer]

Wrong again. No where did I say Blu-ray would fail. And, as I have already demonstrated new players will and do need firmware updates.

Nice duck, but you failed to once again grasp the basic concept that the newer players are at a point where compatibility issues are largely irrelevant. The first generation BD players needed firmware updates to resolve basic playback and performance issues, just about all of the current players don't.

I'm not trying to make more of this than what it is.

You don't have to try because you already have.

If any one made a mountain from a mole hil it's you and Wooch. You act like Blu-ray is totally perfect and nothing negative can be said. Actually, admitting there are firmware updates isn't even a negative. But it is part of ownership of one and you denying it don't make it any less so.

As Terrence pointed out, you're way inflating the importance of these firmware updates and whether the average consumer has the technical know how to install them or even needs them in the first place.

For someone who buys one of the newer players, they will do just fine if they never update their players, because the compatibility issues with nearly all of those players have become few and far between. As T already indicated, NONE of the firmware updates issued in 2009 addressed compatibility issues. So why would a consumer want to flash their BD player firmware if it doesn't solve any problems?

My point was simply that the firmware updates are coming out less frequently, and address less serious issues than before. Your continued ignorance of that simple truth is rather glaring if you claim that you're not arguing for argument's sake.

[Smokey]

As for most older TV shows,most were filmed, and were higher res than 480i, and look a lot better on Blu, especially if they are cleaned up.

Given that msot classic TV shows on DVD are Sitcom, I don't think that is true. Top shows like Sanford and Son, Married With Children, All In The Family or Three's Company were taped (not filmed) and don't think they look too good on Bluray.

You can tell pretty much which TV shows were taped and which one were filmed. The shows that were filmed have more depth, resolution and color saturation than taped ones.

The DVD format will be viable until it gets surpassed by Blu-ray. Some analysts are now projecting that will happen sometime in 2012. At that point, the DVD's demise will be swift and decisive. The hardware will be all Blu-ray capable by that point, and retailers will not maintain dual disc inventories indefinitely.

I have not been to Bestbuy in a while (or Walmart ), but they have like 7 or 8 ailes of DVD on both sides. So you are saying that in 2 or 3 years, all those ailes with DVDs will be replaced with Bluray discs?

There are so many movie titles out ther that be a while before it get on Bluray, and maenwhile DVD probably will be the only medium to have those titles. So if BB or WM pull those DVDs off the shelves and don't replace thme with its Bluray counter part, I don't think that be good business sense as you would have empty shelves.

Look at how quickly VHS disappeared from store shelves after the DVD format took over the sales lead in 2003 (some retailers like Best Buy had already cut out their VHS titles well before then). It took only three years after that for the studios to abandon the format altogether.

That might be comparing apple and oranges as VHS was more flawed than DVD fromat. Public were demaning to get rid of the format due to its "analog" nature. But there seem to be no such a push for DVD as gain is not so dramatic.

TV DVD sets are generally not huge sellers, and most of them probably won't get re-released on Blu-ray anyway. DVD's the perfect medium, because for most TV series, that will be the ONLY medium.

That might be true when they are full priced but if they are on sale, they will go pretty fast. For example, Bestbuy put different TV titles by season on sale on weekly base (starting Sunday) for $12.99, and if you don't get to store by Sunday or Monday, they will be gone. So sombody out there buying them.

Those $2.99 DVDs you see at Big Lots wound up at that price for a reason -- NOBODY WANTS THEM ANYMORE! Joe6p already rented them or bought them ages ago.

Contrary to Walmart's Bargin bin where most titles have been seen, many DVD titles at Biglots are obsecure or hard to find titles. Just recently picked up movies like There Was Crooked Man, Sunshine Boys, Going In Style and Support Your Local Sherif where I have not seen in BB or Walmart.

[Invader3k]

There's also a ton of big movies that haven't made the transition to Blu-Ray (yet). Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, etc. When some of those heavy hitter films start coming out on BD, I think that is going to be a real tipping point.

[bfalls]

Wednesday and Thursday we had an Open House at Sony DADC. It was reported we manufactured 1.5M DVDs and 800K Blu-rays. I hope DVD isn't dead

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Wednesday and Thursday we had an Open House at Sony DADC. It was reported we manufactured 1.5M DVDs and 800K Blu-rays. I hope DVD isn't dead

Don't worry, those numbers will be switched soon enough. I need to find out how Panasonic line did.

Did they tell you how many were BD-50 and BD-25?

[Woochifer]

I have not been to Bestbuy in a while (or Walmart ), but they have like 7 or 8 ailes of DVD on both sides. So you are saying that in 2 or 3 years, all those ailes with DVDs will be replaced with Bluray discs?

Might need to take time out from the bin diving and drop by a Best Buy store. BB announced before the holidays that they would roughly triple the shelf space for Blu-ray to 30% of their movie sections, and the Blu-ray presence at all of my local BB stores has really ramped up over the last couple of months.

Costco said that they would ramp up their BD title selection by 50% for the holidays. In an article from Video Business, Costco's DVD/Blu-ray buyer said that their Blu-ray player sales are now 450% above where they were last year. Those are the types of accelerated growth trends you saw with the DVD format when it got into the 4th year.

The DVD format surpassed VHS after six years. According to some analysts, Blu-ray is on pace to do the same thing by the end of 2012. Recall that Best Buy's VHS selection had already gotten pared way back before then. Once the DVD format reached majority status, that signaled the death knell for VHS, and retailers, manufacturers, and studios alike abandoned the format very quickly thereafter.

There are so many movie titles out ther that be a while before it get on Bluray, and maenwhile DVD probably will be the only medium to have those titles. So if BB or WM pull those DVDs off the shelves and don't replace thme with its Bluray counter part, I don't think that be good business sense as you would have empty shelves.

That's a non-issue because the home video business is and always has been driven by new releases. The market follows what happens with newer titles. Catalog titles fill the shelf space, but generate only a fraction of the total sales. The Blu-ray sections are replacing the DVD shelf space simply because that's where consumers have headed. If Blu-ray reaches majority status, then it would not make good business sense for retailers to continue stocking a lower margin format rapidly headed towards obsolescence.

When the DVD format was in its 4th year, VHS had a far greater selection, but that did nothing to keep that format alive indefinitely. Even now, the DVD format's title selection does not approach what VHS had. Doesn't matter -- VHS is still a dead format.

That might be comparing apple and oranges as VHS was more flawed than DVD fromat. Public were demaning to get rid of the format due to its "analog" nature. But there seem to be no such a push for DVD as gain is not so dramatic.

It's not apples and oranges because it's still consumers talking with the dollars and cents they spend on video products. And those dollars have now shifted towards Blu-ray in a pattern very much parallels what happened with the DVD. For other people, the DVD format is equally flawed because of its "standard def" nature.

VHS still controlled a sizable share of the market when video stores, retailers, and manufacturers began phasing out the format. Doesn't matter if you don't perceive a push away from the DVD because the sales figures would indicate otherwise. Remember that the DVD's success was far from certain, and I recall many voices out there opining that VHS was "good enough" for most consumers.

That might be true when they are full priced but if they are on sale, they will go pretty fast. For example, Bestbuy put different TV titles by season on sale on weekly base (starting Sunday) for $12.99, and if you don't get to store by Sunday or Monday, they will be gone. So sombody out there buying them.

But, again TV shows don't make up a huge chunk of the overall sales. Why would those TV seasons need to be discounted down to $13? With BB basically tripling their shelf space for Blu-ray, all that space has to be cleared somehow.

Like I said, they are a cheap way for the studios to clear out their vault material, but certainly not something that's going to drive the market.

[Woochifer]

There's also a ton of big movies that haven't made the transition to Blu-Ray (yet). Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, etc. When some of those heavy hitter films start coming out on BD, I think that is going to be a real tipping point.

The real tipping point will be when sales on new releases begin regularly splitting 50/50 between Blu-ray and DVD. That's the point at which you'll see the industry begin to consolidate around Blu-ray and phase out the DVD. New releases are where Blu-ray will attract the big sales numbers.

Catalog titles are a relatively small chunk of the market, and re-releases on sell-through titles generally don't sell nearly as well as they originally did in their home video debut. The best examples are the Disney titles, which can sell tens of millions of copies when they first become available. But, when those titles got released on DVD, the sales were a fraction of those from the original VHS release. The biggest sellers remain the new releases.

Finding Nemo is the biggest selling DVD ever with over 40 million copies sold. Whenever that title comes out on Blu-ray, they'll be lucky to even get 5% of that.

[Smokey]

That's a non-issue because the home video business is and always has been driven by new releases. The market follows what happens with newer titles. Catalog titles fill the shelf space, but generate only a fraction of the total sales. If Blu-ray reaches majority status, then it would not make good business sense for retailers to continue stocking a lower margin format rapidly headed towards obsolescence.

We are in agreement that DVD will eventually take a left turn...but couple of more thougths

If retailers pull the plugs on DVD in couple of years, then what would happen with all those low profit DVD catalog titles that Bluray will not be able to replace overnight?

It took 5 to 6 years before obsecure tiltes became available on DVD, and if retailers dump DVDs, do we have to wait another 5to 6 years before those titles come on Bluray. As you said, older catalog titles are low profit for retailers, but woudn't you say that still be better than no profit waiting for bluray titles to catch up with DVD.

[pixelthis]

We are in agreement that DVD will eventually take a left turn...but couple of more thougths

If retailers pull the plugs on DVD in couple of years, then what would happen with all those low profit DVD catalog titles that Bluray will not be able to replace overnight?

It took 5 to 6 years before obsecure tiltes became available on DVD, and if retailers dump DVDs, do we have to wait another 5to 6 years before those titles come on Bluray. As you said, older catalog titles are low profit for retailers, but woudn't you say that still be better than no profit waiting for bluray titles to catch up with DVD.

I am sure there will always be a "niche" for cheap DVD, just like there is for VHS.
And what Wooch said is basically correct, BB was just swamped with BLU titles.
I have always said that BLU is just an upgrade from DVD, and I THINK most will treat it as such.

[Woochifer]

If retailers pull the plugs on DVD in couple of years, then what would happen with all those low profit DVD catalog titles that Bluray will not be able to replace overnight?

They will remain in place until the DVD shelf space gets smaller and smaller, and then it will become unavailable altogether, except through back channels or mail order. This is no different than what happened to VHS. Starting around 2003, mail order was the only way to obtain many VHS titles.

It took 5 to 6 years before obsecure tiltes became available on DVD, and if retailers dump DVDs, do we have to wait another 5to 6 years before those titles come on Bluray. As you said, older catalog titles are low profit for retailers, but woudn't you say that still be better than no profit waiting for bluray titles to catch up with DVD.

Look at where we are, and where we're going. By the time DVD availability becomes an issue, the Blu-ray format will be more than six years old (and probably closer to nine years old). By that time, the obscure titles will have been trickling out in Blu-ray for a while.

You also have to keep in mind that many of these DVD titles will have gone out of print well before then. Even if a retailer wanted to keep those cheap DVDs around, the selection and availability will dwindle in a hurry once the DVD format is consigned to minority status. The studios will delete scores of titles from their wholesale catalogs, making them unavailable altogether. In the short-term, that might be a good thing for dollar bin diving as the studios empty out their warehouses. But, consider that a last hurrah once the supply gets depleted.

If in the meantime, it's more profitable to the retailers to expand their shelf space for Blu-ray, they will do it (and they already have). When Best Buy and other retailers began paring back the VHS sections, there were (and still are) thousands of titles that had yet to come out on DVD, but the DVD sections generated far more revenue and turned over inventory much quicker.

But, don't ever expect the title availability to cover everything that was/is available on DVD. A lot of titles simply won't generate enough demand to justify a Blu-ray release. But, remember that there also remains tens of thousands of movie titles that were available on VHS that have never come out on DVD. That never stopped the DVD format from taking over or retailers from phasing out the VHS sections.

[frahengeo]

I just bought the sequel to Night at the Museum for Xmas for my son. Planning to buy the new Harry Potter as well. Both of these blu-ray titles come with the DVD as well and are cheaper than the DVD only package.
Seems like a very good strategy to get more people to adopt blu-ray. I mean, even if I didn't own a blu-ray player/HDTV, the cost alone would drive me to buy the blu-ray since it includes the DVD anyways.
On top of this, with more high definition sets finding its way into people's homes as well as the availability of HD broadcast...Point is. once you've become accustomed to the resolution of 1080P/720P, its somewhat difficult to watch SD. It appears out of focus

[Mr Peabody]

I find what comes to Blu-ray interesting. Circle Of Iron is on BR but to my knowledge has never been on DVD. The John Wayne movie The Searchers was put out on BR and almost immediately became a budget movie. I picked it up at $7.99. It just some how never made it into my collection yet. I see African Queen is coming out. A lot of non-mainstream stuff is coming out too. I rented the movie Hell Ride which was on Blu, I didn't know what it was, that movie would have to stretch to become a "B" movie. Sometimes I wonder if there is a rhyme or reason to what gets released. Looks like several 80's titles, The Last Starfighter, Gremlins, Never Ending Story, etc.

I think prices dropping is really going to get things moving though, and so far the numbers show it.

[Feanor]

I find what comes to Blu-ray interesting. Circle Of Iron is on BR but to my knowledge has never been on DVD. The John Wayne movie The Searchers was put out on BR and almost immediately became a budget movie. I picked it up at $7.99. It just some how never made it into my collection yet. I see African Queen is coming out. A lot of non-mainstream stuff is coming out too. I rented the movie Hell Ride which was on Blu, I didn't know what it was, that movie would have to stretch to become a "B" movie. Sometimes I wonder if there is a rhyme or reason to what gets released. Looks like several 80's titles, The Last Starfighter, Gremlins, Never Ending Story, etc.

I think prices dropping is really going to get things moving though, and so far the numbers show it.

I think you're right that low prices on these oldies will give a good many customers an incentive to switch to Blu-ray.

How good are these BR remasters?? I guess many are made from film, (35mm? 70mm?), that presumably have plenty of resolution for BR, so there would seem to be plenty of potiential (for the video if not the sound).

On the other hand Sir ToT has been telling us how expensive it is to switch production to BR, how much more difficult to master, etc.. So I wonder what the trick is that they can produce these oldies for $8.00 per copy? Obviously the cost of the original filming is totally irrelevant, but what about the post-production costs?

I've always made the point that the incremental cost to put one more physical copy on the shelve is unrelated to the $30-40 MSRP of the new-movie product.

[Worf101]

I've been into BR a little while now with my Oppo BD-83. I've found that most disc incompatibility problems are usually the result of a faulty disk. I've not found one disk that wouldn't play if washed or replaced by Netflix. I've not bought any BR disks and probably won't long as I can git em on Netflix. But I've found the entire process of migrating from DVD to BR to have been relatively painless if you DON'T count the cash outlay!!!! LOL

Da Worfster

[Feanor]

I've been into BR a little while now with my Oppo BD-83. I've found that most disc incompatibility problems are usually the result of a faulty disk. I've not found one disk that wouldn't play if washed or replaced by Netflix. I've not bought any BR disks and probably won't long as I can git em on Netflix. But I've found the entire process of migrating from DVD to BR to have been relatively painless if you DON'T count the cash outlay!!!! LOL

Da Worfster

Amen to that. I'll be getting mine from Zip.ca. I'd be happy renting forever, though my wife will probably want to buy a few.

[BadAssJazz]

I've been into BR a little while now with my Oppo BD-83. I've found that most disc incompatibility problems are usually the result of a faulty disk. I've not found one disk that wouldn't play if washed or replaced by Netflix. I've not bought any BR disks and probably won't long as I can git em on Netflix. But I've found the entire process of migrating from DVD to BR to have been relatively painless if you DON'T count the cash outlay!!!! LOL

Da Worfster

+1 on Netflix. It's impossible to own everything that I want to see on BR. Well, not impossible, but very expensive..

[pixelthis]

I think you're right that low prices on these oldies will give a good many customers an incentive to switch to Blu-ray.

How good are these BR remasters?? I guess many are made from film, (35mm? 70mm?), that presumably have plenty of resolution for BR, so there would seem to be plenty of potiential (for the video if not the sound).

On the other hand Sir ToT has been telling us how expensive it is to switch production to BR, how much more difficult to master, etc.. So I wonder what the trick is that they can produce these oldies for $8.00 per copy? Obviously the cost of the original filming is totally irrelevant, but what about the post-production costs?

I've always made the point that the incremental cost to put one more physical copy on the shelve is unrelated to the $30-40 MSRP of the new-movie product.

Sir Talky tells a lot of stuff, a good percentage a tad delusional.
The biggest cost for a title is always royalties, these older titles are cheap in that regard,
some are even general issue.
And transcoding up to BLU can be expensive, but lets face it, a lot of these old gems arent having much time wasted on them.
You "upconvert" an old movie everytime you watch it on a 1080p telly, really.
NO BIGGIE.

[Woochifer]

I think you're right that low prices on these oldies will give a good many customers an incentive to switch to Blu-ray.

How good are these BR remasters?? I guess many are made from film, (35mm? 70mm?), that presumably have plenty of resolution for BR, so there would seem to be plenty of potiential (for the video if not the sound).

The quality of the masters will vary considerably. Some of the BDs that had major restoration work done with frame-by-frame scans (e.g., Blade Runner and Sleeping Beauty) are jawdropping in their image quality. Newer movies are also either filmed digitally or use a digital intermediary during post production, so the BD transfer is very close to the original. Artistically, I think BD brings the viewer closer to the source because details like the film grain are now visible.

Others BDs use deficient sources, and that's reflected in the end product. For example, the BD for Gladiator has been getting roundly panned by enthusiasts for its subpar image quality. Apparently, that BD simply reused the same high definition scan originally done for the 2001 DVD release. Yes, it's true HD resolution, but the scanning technology has exponentially improved since that time. That master might have looked fine for a DVD transfer, but its flaws are visible when viewed at 1080p.

On the other hand Sir ToT has been telling us how expensive it is to switch production to BR, how much more difficult to master, etc.. So I wonder what the trick is that they can produce these oldies for $8.00 per copy? Obviously the cost of the original filming is totally irrelevant, but what about the post-production costs?

Once the post-production is switched over, it's done. Once the BD production lines are up and running, they're done. You're talking about one-time sunk costs that get amortized over time. BD production costs are already fairly low, so it's not the production costs that explain the price differential between Blu-ray releases and their DVD counterparts.

There is no trick to producing older movies for $8 each. Most of those BDs getting marked down that low have been in print for at least a couple of years. It's nothing more than a normal product cycle where a title gets released, and then it migrates down into lower price points over time. The reason why so many BD disc prices are so high is because most of them are relatively new and haven't gone through that price cycle yet.

I just bought the sequel to Night at the Museum for Xmas for my son. Planning to buy the new Harry Potter as well. Both of these blu-ray titles come with the DVD as well and are cheaper than the DVD only package.
Seems like a very good strategy to get more people to adopt blu-ray. I mean, even if I didn't own a blu-ray player/HDTV, the cost alone would drive me to buy the blu-ray since it includes the DVD anyways.

I think that's a very smart transition strategy, although I think the studios are doing that primarily to maintain the higher list prices. With those titles, I've begun seeing the BD prices lower than the special edition two-disc DVD versions (but still higher than the single-disc DVD). That would be a hopeful sign that the studios are now inching the BD prices closer to the single-disc DVDs. Or it's simply a sign that the studios are ready to pull the plug on the special edition two-disc DVD sets.

Universal also announced that they will begin issuing DVD/BD flipper discs that put both formats onto a single disc. On the surface that seems like a good idea, but I recall that the DVD/HD-DVD flippers were plagued with high defect rates and not especially durable. If that issue is not resolved before these flipper discs go out, that would make for a lot of bad PR for Blu-ray. I'm not so sure that this would reduce the production costs by all that much, but it would eliminate the need for dual inventories (which studios and retailers alike hate) and I think that might be the primary motive here.

On top of this, with more high definition sets finding its way into people's homes as well as the availability of HD broadcast...Point is. once you've become accustomed to the resolution of 1080P/720P, its somewhat difficult to watch SD. It appears out of focus

I think all of these tech bloggers who've been predicting/hoping for Blu-ray's demise keep missing this fundamental point. Blu-ray right now is the highest quality video format available to consumers. When consumers upgrade to HDTV, they also typically upgrade to a larger screen size. And on that larger screen, SD resolution looks horrible. On a larger screen, those "HD" downloads and streams will also look substandard compared to Blu-ray.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Sir Talky tells a lot of stuff, a good percentage a tad delusional.
The biggest cost for a title is always royalties, these older titles are cheap in that regard,
some are even general issue.
And transcoding up to BLU can be expensive, but lets face it, a lot of these old gems arent having much time wasted on them.
You "upconvert" an old movie everytime you watch it on a 1080p telly, really.
NO BIGGIE.

Ummmm Pix, from what position that you sit that you can judge what I post as delusional? Have you ever worked in the film industry? No you have not, you don't even know the difference between a matrix format, and sound enhancements.

Royalties are not the biggest cost, it is restoration, compression and authoring. And you do not trancode up to Bluray resolution, either the source is equal to 1080p (most 35mm film) or you have to down rez to Bluray (IMAX, 65mm or 70mm)

When you state that someone elses information is "delusional", it might help that your comments are at least accurate, or in the ball park. Much of the time your comments are neither.

All movies on Bluray are encoded at 1080p, so there is no need for upconversion of any Bluray disc.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Universal also announced that they will begin issuing DVD/BD flipper discs that put both formats onto a single disc. On the surface that seems like a good idea, but I recall that the DVD/HD-DVD flippers were plagued with high defect rates and not especially durable. If that issue is not resolved before these flipper discs go out, that would make for a lot of bad PR for Blu-ray. I'm not so sure that this would reduce the production costs by all that much, but it would eliminate the need for dual inventories (which studios and retailers alike hate) and I think that might be the primary motive here.

Personally I think someone at Universal is smokin crack on this. The HD DVD combo disc cost Universal a fortune to replicate, and then turn around and replace. The bonding that glues the two sides together did not hold, which caused the disc to either rot, or fail after a few months. They had a high failure rate during replication, and often the failed disc made it into the distribution chain and to consumers which they had to replace. The Ant Bully costs Warner a fortune because of the amount of disc that failed and had to be replaced.

Combo disc cost quite a bit of money to replicate, which is why Warner gave up on the HD DVD/Bluray combo disc even before it came to market. The best way to get rid of dual inventory is to do what many studio are currently doing...offering a Bluray disc, and a DVD disc (and digital copy) in the same box. This is cheaper than the flipper disc, and has proven to be quite consumer friendly. We at Disney have gotten a great response from this practice, and plan to continue doing it until DVD goes away.

[L.J.]

The best way to get rid of dual inventory is to do what many studio are currently doing...offering a Bluray disc, and a DVD disc (and digital copy) in the same box. This is cheaper than the flipper disc, and has proven to be quite consumer friendly. We at Disney have gotten a great response from this practice, and plan to continue doing it until DVD goes away.

Yeah I was hoping that would catch on. I started a thread over a year ago asking would the BR with bonus DVD become the norm. This is huge to me. I put the DVD in a separate case to go in my kids room or bring along to play on the laptop. Hopefully more studios join Disney on this.

[frahengeo]

Yeah I was hoping that would catch on. I started a thread over a year ago asking would the BR with bonus DVD become the norm. This is huge to me. I put the DVD in a separate case to go in my kids room or bring along to play on the laptop. Hopefully more studios join Disney on this.

Night at the Museum II: Fox
Harry Potter 6: Warner Bros ($14.99!!)

[pixelthis]

Ummmm Pix, from what position that you sit that you can judge what I post as delusional? Have you ever worked in the film industry? No you have not, you don't even know the difference between a matrix format, and sound enhancements.

To call being a PR hack "work" is streching it a bit, but I will concede the point

Royalties are not the biggest cost, it is restoration, compression and authoring. And you do not trancode up to Bluray resolution, either the source is equal to 1080p (most 35mm film) or you have to down rez to Bluray (IMAX, 65mm or 70mm)

And you said awhile back that film wasnt HD because its not 16:9.
And I worked at a disc plant for awhile, talked to a lot of the bigshots on several occasions,
and remarked on how much goes into making a title one day while watching a machine the size of my house wash a batch with purified water.
THE manager watching said (after I REMARKED AT HOW EXPENSIVE making a disc must be) that royalty payments and other such were far and away the most expensive part of disc making.
BLU is probably higher, but the average cost (packaging, authoring, pressing, the truck)
is two dollars for one disc.
WHICH IS WHY i DONT GREIVE MUCH about how sales of CD's are tanking.

When you state that someone elses information is "delusional", it might help that your comments are at least accurate, or in the ball park. Much of the time your comments are neither.

Awww dont be like that talky! I was just kidding(mostly)

All movies on Bluray are encoded at 1080p, so there is no need for upconversion of any Bluray disc.

Maybe now, but they started out making some at 720p, and there are still 720p discs out there, mostly at firesale prices.
And the fact that most are 1080p is why you set your receiver to "through", BTW

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Maybe now, but they started out making some at 720p, and there are still 720p discs out there, mostly at firesale prices.
And the fact that most are 1080p is why you set your receiver to "through", BTW

No Pix, your lying again. The standard is based on 1080p encoding, and there are zero Bluray disc out there at 720p.

To call being a PR hack "work" is streching it a bit, but I will concede the point

At least I have a job Pix.....

And you said awhile back that film wasnt HD because its not 16:9.

Actually film is not HD because HD is based on a video standard, not a film standard. Film is encoded into high definition video.

And I worked at a disc plant for awhile, talked to a lot of the bigshots on several occasions,
and remarked on how much goes into making a title one day while watching a machine the size of my house wash a batch with purified water.
THE manager watching said (after I REMARKED AT HOW EXPENSIVE making a disc must be) that royalty payments and other such were far and away the most expensive part of disc making.

One thing you forgot in your statement, you cannot make a disc without the process that happens before it is complete. And here is what you really said, and it mentions nothing about disc replication.

The biggest cost for a title is always royalties, these older titles are cheap in that regard,
some are even general issue.

The biggest cost for getting a title to disc is the restoration of the film elements, authoring, compression. These three alone cost more than the entire replication process combined including royalties.

BLU is probably higher, but the average cost (packaging, authoring, pressing, the truck)
is two dollars for one disc.
WHICH IS WHY i DONT GREIVE MUCH about how sales of CD's are tanking.

Not accurate at all. The current pricing for an order of 5,000 bulk BD25 discs would be $9,350, including replication, AACS and mastering (but excluding shipping and taxes). That is to say, overall unit price would be $1.87 per disc without shipping and taxes. When you add shipping and taxes, the per disc price raises well above two dollars per disc.

The cost of a 5,000 bulk BD50 would be a along the lines of $2.60 with replication, AACS and mastering. And this is for a smaller replication facility that handles mostly non studio clients. For larger orders, the price comes down per disc, but the overall costs go up. So the "rough" estimate you got is not accurate at all.

When you add in the fact that most movies are utilizing the BD50 disc, you can see the per disc price is well above your $2 estimate.