Some Blu-Ray, HD DVD Discs Sell Only 200 Copies

An anonymous reader writes "Much has been made of the strong sales for some recent high-def disc releases (such as 'Casino Royale' on Blu-ray), but a new Sony research report reveals some startlingly low sales numbers for other titles released on the next-gen formats. When disc sales of under 1000 can land you on a weekly best-sellers list, you know your format is in its infancy."

Comments

Similar to Vista.

[jez9999]

People aren't buying into it in droves, because the previous thing they used works well enough for them and the new features offered by it aren't enough of an incentive to 'upgrade'; on the other hand, it is laden with DRM that the previous thing wasn't.

Am I talking about Vista or HD-DVD/Blu-ray?

Re:Similar to Vista.

[Technician]

it is laden with DRM that the previous thing wasn't

It's also laden with high prices. The most expensive conventional DVD's (with few exceptions) are priced in the $18-$22 range. The average price of DVD's I pick up are under $12 each.

The HD DVD's listed are in the $20-$40 range. When DVD's are good enough, doubling or tripling the price is going to slow adoption. The old Laserdisk format came with the promise to drop in price to below VHS. (When VHS was $20 each for blank tape)

Due to the requirement for the format to be DRM free and the higher quality, the studios simply refused to release content except at very high royalty rates. The promise of lower prices never materialized. (much like LP's and CD's) DVD's finaly started to drop enough in price to gain market acceptance over VHS.

It is here all over again. New format, high prices, good enough format in the channel. Unless someone does something to kickstart the format like a good price war, things are going to have a slow start. DRM is going to slow it even further as the restrictions on ripping to the kids Zen or iPod video and to Media Center PC's cripple the functionality.

You have a new format at higher prices that does less than your old format. A higher quality picture is nice, but the price (dollars and function loss) is kinda steep.

Re:Similar to Vista.

[king-manic]

People aren't buying into it in droves, because the previous thing they used works well enough for them and the new features offered by it aren't enough of an incentive to 'upgrade'; on the other hand, it is laden with DRM that the previous thing wasn't.

DRM is only a concern to maybe 0.01% of the market (roughly the # of slashdot posters to bitch about it). The key limtiation in install base not DRM. DVD had stronger DRM then VHS. almost no one cared. Ditto with blu-ray/HD DVD vs DVD. People do not tend to try to copy their DVDs, those who do will eventually go with the method to do so with Bluray-HDDVD. Everyone else will shrug.

As a few analysts and Sony markettign pointed out, Bluray is catching on faster then DVD did.( Although only by about as much as the pop has grown). So it seems Bluray is going to be the next major format. Don't kid yourself, your concerns are not shared by even the general slashdot populace.

Re:Similar to Vista.

[SerpentMage]

Its a funny comparison, but oh so true... Vista is neat, cool and interesting, but XP SP2 does everything I need it to. HDDVD is not even on my radar because that would imply buying an HDTV, imply buying HDTV tuner, etc, etc. And at the end of the day all I want to do is watch a program. I do not care if I can see Mel Gibsons butt pimples.... Actually that is too much information for me.

Re:Similar to Vista.

[cheater512]

People are concerned about the effects of DRM however.

My Mum doesnt care about DRM at all but she refused to buy any DVD player which wasnt Region 0.

Re:Similar to Vista.

[el_womble]

DVD has two faults in my eyes:

1: Its on a disc, so it takes up a lot of phyisical space and isn't instantly accessable like my music.
2: Its low quality. I have a nice 21" iMac and a new MacBook and would like to watch movies without the jaggies. (I know about VLC)

I don't want bluray or hddvd. I just want H.264, DivX or even MPEG2 in 720p or 1080p delivered via an online store, for a reasonable amount of money (bandwidth, servers and software do not cost as much as drivers, plastic, trucks, fuel and retail outlets - it just doesn't), that I can watch on any OS that I choose to use that day.

The DVD drive, for me at least, is going the way of the floppy. If I can't send it over the network, I use a $15 2GB flash stick. I need a DVD drive to occasionaly watch a DVD or incase it all goes fubar and I need to reimage (and that's only because I'm too lazy to have a bootable image lying around on firewire). My next laptop will hopefully be devoid of this most unreliable, power hungry, space eating item of history and replaced either with a bigger battery, ram or another processor - and whilst we're at it can I have my HDD replaced with flash as well? And I want a pony.

I almost wish this argument was redundant, but I fear its going to be at least anoth 5 years before the idiots from the Copyright 1.0 world realise that their business model needs an overhaul in the Web 2.0 world - and my dream of living without coasters is truely realised.

Re:Similar to Vista.

[PopeRatzo]

DRM is only a concern to maybe 0.01% of the market

What about the music market? Would you say the same thing? I'm guessing that number is going to jump.

If only such a small percent of the market is concerned about DRM, then why has adopting it been such a problem for the entertainment market?

DRM isn't a concern to me only because it's so easy to crack.

Re:Similar to Vista.

[king-manic]

If only such a small percent of the market is concerned about DRM, then why has adopting it been such a problem for the entertainment market?

Apple seems to be doing fine with DRM. Although music is a different thing to video. Right now even DRM free video is a bit clunky to move around. When data transfer speeds reach sub 10s transfer times for decent video you might have an arguement but people are not yet wanting portable video en mass. Some geeks liek me and you have our video Ipods and motorola smart phones etc... but the general populace is just recently caught on to mp3's. DRM is not a huge liability to apple yet. I personally hate drm. I choose DRM free media if it's convinient. But the general populac eis clueless.

Re:Similar to Vista.

[donaldm]

I don't think you can compare MS Vista to HD-DVD and Bluray since with MS Vista you don't really have much choice when you purchase a new computer. With the High Def disks and MS Vista upgrade packs you have a choice if you want to purchase them. In the case of High Def disks it would be rather pointless purchasing them if you don't have a High Def TV (720p or 1080p) and of course a High Def disk player.

Even if you do have a HDTV and a HD player you can still play your older DVD movies so if you see a High Def movie at say $25 and a DVD at $20 you have a choice of which one you want to purchase.

Personally I have found that if you get a HDTV below 100cm (40in) it will be a 720p (1280 × 720 pixels) with most DVD movies displaying well even though you are watching Standard Def TV. Also depending on screen size you may find it hard to tell the difference between HD Disk and DVD on a good quality HDTV and HD player. When the HDTV is larger than 100cm you have the option of 720p or 1080p (1920 × 1080 pixels) and it is here particularly when you get to larger screen sizes that you can see significant differences. Of course you are going to pay much more for a 1080p but if you have the money and many do then why not.

The largest spanner in the HD Disk war is the HD Disk player or even a good quality Amplifier with DVD upscaling. Even some HDTV's can do this but they are more expensive.

Many would say that HD TV's are expensive compared to a tube TV but in a few years you will be hard pressed to actually find a tube TV and even at today's prices a good quality reasonable sized (less than 100cm) LCD or plasma TV can be purchased well below $1000. Again freedom of choice is at work here.

As to why people are purchasing more DVD's to High Def Disk, well they are cheaper and many people have not made the leap to HDTV (small HDTV's don't really count) so many can't see the point yet and the Blueray, HD-DVD war does not help. Still you are free to make a choice.

Re:Similar to Vista.

[Anonymous Coward]

The DVD rate of adoption was phenomenal, and it was vastly superior to VHS. You're right that no one cares about DRM, but they do care about dropping cash for a new player and new movies for a minor improvement over DVDs. Bluray is SACD redux. And the results will be the same.

Re:Similar to Vista.

[Calyth]

You're viewing this in the techie perspective. Most poeple won't mind the space that a DVD takes up, 2-3 dvd single cases would take up the space of VHS, and I'm sure there are those who aren't technically savvy like us who had space for VHS.

Also, they would be mostly playing it on TV (not HD DVD), and the difference between a H.264/DivX vs DVD would be non-existent. Sure, on a 21" widescreen it's very noticible, but DVD has more than enough resolution for TV anyways.

DVD has an advantage over all the different encoding for online delivery of movies - backwards compatibilty. Average Joe could pop by to WalMart, get some $50CDN dvd player, hook it up pretty much like a VCR to his TV, and watch DVDs. He could rent them, he could borrow them and he could drag DVD players around. But he (unless a geek) won't join the encoding zoo out there. He would need a geek to tell him which player to play what format. He might not want to go to various sites (possibly spyware infested) to get his movies (face it, there isn't an online delivery of movies at your required resolution legally). H.264 eats quite a bit of power, and machines a few years old mightn ot be up to the stuff.

DVDs and their next gen equivalent won't go to the way of the floppy. Those of us who demand more of our movies would go for the digital format, while people who don't like computers very much wouldn't mind pulling a DVD off their shelf and jam it in their DVD player, designed for the task, and would hardly break due to spyware or their OS. At least that would be the case until someone offers a set-top device that does what you want right now, and even then, it would still be iffy for the technologically inept to adopt it.

Re:Similar to Vista.

[crosstalk]

and considering some of the new players do upconverts whats the point as well(you can get a 100 up converting dvd player, that puts out 1080i from your regular dvd, and most people are going to say thats good enough for me, look all my regular dvd's just got better

Re:Similar to Vista.

[DrXym]

People aren't buying into it in droves, because the previous thing they used works well enough for them and the new features offered by it aren't enough of an incentive to 'upgrade'; on the other hand, it is laden with DRM that the previous thing wasn't.

The same could have been said of DVD at the time. Its obvious that HD discs are still in the early adopter phase and probably will be until Christmas at least when players get to be cheaper and the number of titles jumps. I expect there is also some lingering confusion because of the dual formats which might lead to a sales boost when HD-DVD finally gives up the ghost. The sooner it happens the better.

Re:Similar to Vista.

[Znork]

"DVD had stronger DRM then VHS. almost no one cared."

When DVD finally took off here I dont think you could find a player that actually wasnt region free. And as half the DVD's available were other regions, you'd certainly find every salesperson and every consumer review saying that you should make sure you get a region free player.

"People do not tend to try to copy their DVDs"

Until they get a media center of some kind. In which case physical media becomes a pita that you dont want to deal with.

HD media simply doesnt have any major compelling qualities over the current format. Heck, I dont even bother keeping DVD's in full quality on the mythserver; much as I'd want to I cant say I notice the difference between full quality DVD and a good 1200 kbit xvid encode with a moving picture on a 32" TV from six feet away, so why bother with a format that gives me little but a bunch of extra pixels I dont have the visual acuity to see anyway (unless I pause the picture and put my face to the screen, which isnt exactly how I usually watch TV).

Maybe it'll become interesting when they release those high definition cybernetic eye implants. Until then, the offerings on the table get a big and heartfelt meh.

Re:Similar to Vista.

[Andy Dodd]

"DRM is only a concern to maybe 0.01% of the market (roughly the # of slashdot posters to bitch about it). The key limtiation in install base not DRM. DVD had stronger DRM then VHS. almost no one cared. Ditto with blu-ray/HD DVD vs DVD. People do not tend to try to copy their DVDs, those who do will eventually go with the method to do so with Bluray-HDDVD. Everyone else will shrug."

HDCP? Image Constraint Token?

The fact is that the DRM on high def discs has gone so far in terms of fear of copying that it has begun significantly affecting Joe Average consumer.

For example, all early adopters of HDTVs are screwed - Their sets don't do HDCP, and while so far no one has enabled the ICT, it's a monster looming on the horizon that everyone using an analog connection is worried about.

Even owners of new HDTVs are often screwed - there are numerous stories of failed HDCP handshakes resulting in people's brand new HDCP-capable HDTVs giving them a blank screen when they attempted to plug in .

Re:Similar to Vista.

[Carbonite]

I'd guess that less than 1% of parents even know what Region 0 is so I don't think it's affecting sales too much.

Re:Similar to Vista.

[Kadin2048]

They don't know what it's called, but people particularly in Europe absolutely know what it is; they want "a DVD player that will play imported discs."

They're not quite as big a deal here in the U.S., because frankly very few people watch imported content of any sort, but the few people that do can go out and get them without any problems. (Also, I've heard that most of the cheap Chinese DVD players are Region 0 anyway, right out of the box. Never tested it, because I don't have any non-Region-1 discs, but it's probably easier for the manufacturers to only make one model which they can sell worldwide, and not three or four different ones.)

Re:Similar to Vista.

[ConceptJunkie]

But region encoding _is_ DRM.

Re:Similar to Vista.

[miskatonic alumnus]

It's also laden with high prices. The most expensive conventional DVD's (with few exceptions) are priced in the $18-$22 range. The average price of DVD's I pick up are under $12 each.

A good many of those have poor transfers also. In fact, after recently purchasing a hi-def television, I've begun to notice drastic differences in picture quality between different dvd's. The tendency seems to be $10 for crappy transfers, $15-$20 for hi-def remasters. Of course, nearly any DVD from Criterion will be around $30. So, the price isn't that big of an issue for me.

Re:Similar to Vista.

[cei]

To be more specific about the LD vs VHS pricing, it was often the case that new release feature films on VHS would be "priced for rental" so that buying the movie on tape would cost you ~$90 while buying the LD was closer to $30. That said, I still own my Criterion boxed set of Brazil on LaserDisc, and because I spent something like $120 on it, haven't replaced that title with DVD in my library yet.

Re:Similar to Vista.

[Kichigai Mentat]

An excellent point, I think. However, this one could work both ways. Since, inferring from your information, not many HD sets are officially HDCP Compliant (handshake failure counts and non-compliant), and certain discs or devices will require HDCP, consumers will notice something's wrong when their $40 HD-DVD/BluRay is lower quality than the Free OTA broadcasts (or the infernal thing doesn't work at all). Many disgruntaled users will complain and be told to buy a new HDTV. Since HDTVs aren't exactly a dime-a-dozen (unlike DVDs and DVD players), it's likely people will revolt. This will lead to one of a few different outcomes, in my opinion.

First
Fed up, consumers will abandon HD-DVD/BluRay and go with DVDs which JustWork(TM). HD-DVD and BluRay will become a niche format with videophiles, in a similar way to vinyl; and collectors, similarly to LaserDisc. Seems likely to me.

Second
Someone will come up with an HDCP spoofer or stripper, kind of like the de-Macrovisioning boxes, and that will become common place. HDCP will collapse, and HDCP-free discs and players will take over. Highly unlikely for quite a few years, and by then this will be resolved.

Third
Afraid of losing their angry and riotous customers (IE: their bread and butter), HDCP is abandoned, either completely (like most kinds of CD-based DRM) or for a "better" encryption method (kind of like ARCCoS). This could happen, but I'm not too sure if consumers will pay to be disappointed.

I'm not saying these are the only outcomes, but given what I know (and I don't know a whole ton, admittedly) these seem most likely. Feel free to revise my theories.

Re:Similar to Vista.

[Gilmoure]

I hear you. Am so tired of all this Victorian whirling gears and spinning disks. It's the freakin' 21st century. Why do I have mechanical computer storage?

Re:Similar to Vista.

[AJWM]

I've heard that most of the cheap Chinese DVD players are Region 0 anyway, right out of the box.

Certainly not true of the $30 player my wife picked up from Sam's Club as an emergency replacement for the kids' player -- didn't like the Region 2 discs (Star Cops) I just got. My Linux box doesn't care, my (well, my employer's) Windows laptop helpfully asked if I wanted to change the region (but it'll only do it 5 times total). Some (Disney IIRC) discs have control code which queries the region and refuses to play on R0 players.

(I just made a backup copy of the discs and changed the region code -- byte 23 in the video_ts.ifo file.)

Re:Similar to Vista.

[drinkypoo]

Shit, it probably looks better on LaserDisc. I have Strange Days on both types of media, and it looks ever-so-slightly better on the LD (the movie is dark most of the time, and there's no artifacting on the LD.) If it's a Criterion LD, it's almost guaranteed to look better than any DVD, even a Criterion Collection release.

Re:Similar to Vista.

[drinkypoo]

If you get an Apex/Raite/Sampo player with a debug menu (most of them, it seems) you can change the region endlessly. I have an AD3201 but the DVD drive failed... You can set it to 0 or to any number region, which works with the discs that query the region and refuse to play on anything other than their chosen region.

Re:Similar to Vista.

[AJWM]

Yeah, I still have one of the original Apex AD-600A players - that's how I discovered that some discs don't like R0. The drive itself died in it a while back, I just swapped it out for a regular IDE DVD drive (well, the mechanical fit isn't perfect). Works great for watching PAL discs on an NTSC TV.

Re:Similar to Vista.

[drew]

As a few analysts and Sony markettign pointed out, Bluray is catching on faster then DVD did. (Although only by about as much as the pop has grown). So it seems Bluray is going to be the next major format. Don't kid yourself, your concerns are not shared by even the general slashdot populace.

Adoption rate among early adopters means almost nothing. Once BluRay saturates the market of people who really care about HD content, it's going to have a really tough sell, because the vast majority of people won't see or care enough about the difference between the two to be willing to buy a new player and spend twice as much on the movies when they already have a DVD player that works fine.

Re:Similar to Vista.

[elrous0]

DVD is laden with DRM as well. And I remember the "Why should they switch? VHS works well enough for them" argument being made in the early days of DVD too. In fact, HD-DVD/Blu-ray have an advantage over DVD in that they don't have to compete against an almost-as-good format already established for videophiles (Laserdisc) or a as-good-but-loaded-with-Draconian-DRM format (Divx). HD-DVD/Blu-ray ARE burdened with a format war, though, which does hurt.

It took years for DVD to really catch on. I remember in the early days when we videophiles used to debate whether DVD was even going to SURVIVE, much less become the home video format of choice.

I should also note that the prices of new HD titles are in line with the prices of early DVD's (cheaper if you adjust for inflation). When DVD's first came out, they ran $20-$35. Only the Warner titles were priced at $20. Disney stuff ran $30-$35. Most of the others ran $25. Players started at $450-500. This is almost exactly comparable to HD-DVD (though Blu-ray is a little more pricey).

Re:Similar to Vista.

[james_orr]

Well, I don't particularly care about DRM either, but I still don't have any inclincation to purchase HD-DVD or Bluray.

For one thing, I don't have an HD TV. I don't feel a need to get one either. For me, my 32" SD TV is perfectly good enough.

When going from VHS to DVS, one of the best things about it for me was the simple fact I didn't have to rewind tapes anymore! The special features are nice too, but they are usually only watched once and not even all my DVD movies have them. The only thing HD-DVD/Bluray offers me is improved picture quality and it's just not worth the expense right now.

Re:Similar to Vista.

[ragabash13]

I suspect that another problem is also involved. It is not a just a new format at higher prices, but two competing formats. Even early adopters are being hesitant to buy into a $600 system which may prove to be the next betamax. Even worse, many movies are being released exclusively on a single format, which means that to get all of the movies you want you will have to buy both. In the end it is far easier, cheaper, better to stay with DVDs. The higher quality of picture is not worth the hassle of the upgrade. I am starting to wonder if both formats will fail due to this and the other mentioned issues.

Re:Similar to Vista.

[Lovesquid]

I received an HD-DVD add-on drive for my 360 as a Christmas gift. Since that time, I've bought exactly 2 HD-DVD movies, both of which I already own on standard DVD but which I thought warranted experiencing in HiDef, and about 30 standard DVDs. Reasons for this are 1) the price per movie (this is a BIG one), and 2) the fact that I just don't trust HD-DVD to survive for long, regardless of Blu-Ray's existence. I just don't want to get stuck with some movies in a "dead" format. I don't hesitate to buy standard DVDs because I know they are not going away any time soon. I cannot say the same about HD-DVD. Though I AM thoroughly blown away by the features and picture/sound quality of my HD-DVD movies, I find myself hesitant to buy additional discs... I certainly won't keep my HD-DVD drive around for years and years just to watch a handful of movies on it after.

Yes, I realize that I am shooting myself in the foot as far as not supporting/purchasing HD-DVD discs, and that I'm contributing to the format's failure by not buying them, but I just don't have the confidence in this HiDef format war, or in the standard DVD vs. HiDef DVD (either format) war to feel good about investing additional money in either, especially in light of the fact that I got the player for "free".

The sad part is that I might be more inclined to purchase more movies if the Blu-Ray/HD-DVD battle wasn't a factor, and in this way, both formats are mutually killing each other off in the consumer confidence arena. People who love the notion and potential of watching HiDef movies at home are the real losers in this asinine situation.

Oh, yeah, and spending $30-40 for a Dual Format version of the movie just to future-proof myself is NOT cutting it.

Re:Similar to Vista.

[king-manic]

I have an older set without HDMI. it plays movies at 1080 i fine on my PS3. I fail to see hwo it screwed me.

Re:Similar to Vista.

[Andy Dodd]

Read up on the ICT. Currently disabled for most (if not all) current releases, but it is almost guaranteed that some time in the future, ICT will get switched on. Welcome to the world of 540p, where your $1000+ HDTV and your $500+ BR player perform only slightly better than a $40 progressive scan DVD player.

Re:Similar to Vista.

[walt-sjc]

Oh, exactly. Some people also make backups of DVD's for their kids and store the original in a safe place. The backups start the movie immediately and don't show the 15 minutes of ads a normal DVD has... At least that's what I used to do before my myth box was setup. I tried the Sony 400 disk DVD changer too, and found navigation and management HORRIBLE. Myth is WAY better.

Re:Similar to Vista.

[Anonymous Coward]

The HD-DVD/Blu-ray are not selling as they had assumed partially because the High Definition TV's are not in majority of households yet. While new technology may be worth the extra dollar, Americans are not ready to fork ou the big bucks to see the same movies. There are also too many options and most people are not educated enough to know the difference in technologies and qualities of new DVD's. When people become more familiar with HD-DVD/Blu-Ray disc movies the prices will go down and the amount sold will increase.

Re:Similar to Vista.

[walt-sjc]

DVD is laden with DRM as well.

Yes, but the DRM is broken, and tools for removing it are readily and freely available. I for one did not invest in any kind of DVD media or devices until this happened. I'll say the same for the HD DVD formats. Once I can get my hands on easy to use cracking tools that work all the time, then I'll look into it... First I am waiting to see which format wins though. I expect it to be several years out yet.

Re:Similar to Vista.

[feepness]

, so why bother with a format that gives me little but a bunch of extra pixels I dont have the visual acuity to see anyway (unless I pause the picture and put my face to the screen, which isnt exactly how I usually watch TV).

Once again, this is why porn will decide the winner of the format wars.

Re:Similar to Vista.

[checkyoulater]

People aren't buying into it in droves, because the previous thing they used works well enough for them and the new features offered by it aren't enough of an incentive to 'upgrade'; on the other hand, it is laden with DRM that the previous thing wasn't.


Am I the only one here who just doesn't buy the whole DRM argument? So what if there is DRM? I have no desire whatsoever to rip dvd's to my computer. I'd much rather watch a movie on a big screen in the living room than hunched over my desk. Ditto for the idea of watching a movie on a portable device, a phone, or what have you. Am I showing my age here? Is it really so difficult to open the player, insert a disc and watch the movie? In what way does DRM affect your ability to do that?

Aside from the ability to copy discs, what exactly does the DRM not allow you to do?

Re:Similar to Vista.

[Anonymous Coward]

Move to Japan for 4 years and buy some DVDs then move back home

Re:Similar to Vista.

[den479]

The only movies that I buy are for my 8 yo son. The first thing I do is copy them to a dvd+r then put the original on a high shelf. He likes to watch the same movies over and over.

I've never been able to understand why an adult would want to buy a movie in the first place, once you've watched it why would you need to keep a copy. We rent a movie for a couple of bucks, we watch it, we return it to the store. If it was a really good movie we might rent it again a year or two later, buy then it's not a new release anymore so it costs $1. If your short term memory is so bad that you have to watch reruns several times to remember if the good guy wins you should probably find some better stuff to smoke.

Re:Similar to Vista.

[Technician]

A good many of those have poor transfers also

I've notice that for older films. This is especialy true for DVD's under $2. As a collector of the cartoons I grew up with, 2 hours of early animation at $99cents a copy is a much better value to me than 1950's rock and roll at $12.95 for 48 minutes of stuff.

Let's face it. I can buy a fairly recent (less than 5 years old) DVD for less than $6 new. Ice age and Ever After I just picked up at the grocery store for 5.95 each. Have you checked the price on 20 year old music on CD's? The RIAA hasn't got a clue. I do buy something other than overpriced CD's.

http://www.shop.com/op/~Dark_Side_of_the_Moon_SACD _CD_(Pink_Floyd)-prod-29774059-38976525?sourceid=2 98 Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon. Now $32.99 was $47.38

http://www.towerrecords.com/product.aspx?pfid=1015 357 Beatles White Album Your Price: $28.99

http://www.amazon.com/Night-at-Opera-Queen/dp/B000 000OAN Queen Night at the Opera Price: $10.47 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25.

Now some older classis movies for comparison;

http://www.amazon.com/Fiddler-Roof-Special-Topol/d p/B00005N7YZ Fiddler on the Roof 17 used & new available from $16.95

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/search-ng.gsp?searc h_constraint=0&search_query=star%20wars%20dvds&adi d=0100000031361378202498 Star Wars trilogy 3 movies for about $10 each. List Price: $49.98
Our Price: $33.88

The RIAA can't figure out why I don't buy CD's..

More hints.. here is a list of DVD's at 5.99 Page 1 of 756 titles.
http://www.jr.com/JRSectionView.process?N=13326+16 5&Ne=160#Budget+DVD's

Of course, nearly any DVD from Criterion will be around $30. So, the price isn't that big of an issue for me.

There are people who do pay premium prices for premium content. There is a market for Cadilacs and Mercedez Benz, but the real money is in Wal * Mart. Trying to make a Mercedes the standard car of choice is going to have a tough run against the Toyota's.

The HD DVD manufactures are seeing this right now. Hummers were a hot item as was the Escalade. Casino Royale is a hot item, but it's not overtaking conventional DVD's anytime soon much like Hummers and Escalades are not overtaking Accords and Camerys. This is reflected in the number of unsold high priced titles.

Re:Similar to Vista.

[miskatonic alumnus]

The Dark Side of the Moon that you linked to appears to be an import (higher price). The Beatles white album is a little steep, but it is a double album.

I do purchase CD's (though not as often as I used to some years ago). But, I don't balk at their prices. Hell, I just paid $45 for a used copy of the rare and oop SWANS White Light From the Mouth of Infinity (a terrific album, by the way) and I consider it money well spent. I don't mind paying for quality music and film. But, I'm going to start shying away from the $9.99 Wal-Mart DVD's.

Re:Similar to Vista.

[Technician]

A couple items...

Wal*Mart does not have a line of DVD's. They retail DVD's manufactured by studios. Other retailers also have bargin bins. They are the same DVD's currently being sold in Blockbuster and Hollywood Video.

A prime example.. Ice Age or Ever After.. New $5.99. or Used at Blockbuster.. $12.95 & 14.95 respectively. (or 2 for $20.00) I got Ice Age and Ever After at the grocery store new. I got Open Season and Flushed Away used at 2 for $20. When the product is exactly the same, the low price is not and indicator of low quality.

I can't easly double my income tax free, but in many cases I can cut my expenses in half tax free.

Over all there is a lack of bargin bin CD's of any good content at reasonable prices. Good content tends to keep new retail prices 20-30 years later. There are very few CD's I buy because of the lack of discounted back catalog. There are no discount bins of good back catalog CD's in the grocery store. There are many DVD's I do buy from the back catalog because of the abundance of good material at good prices.

Even Wholesale, barginn bin DVD's are much cheaper than bargin bin CD's.

here is a link to the root of the problem;
http://www.spinningdiscent.com/catalog/index.php

Bulk collectable DVD's 100 for $125 or a buck and a quarter each.
CD's on the other hand... 100 CD's for $185.

Why is a 50 minute average CD so much more than an avrage 90 minute movie? Don't give me a song and dance about it costs more to make. The team to make Monsters Inc needed much more technical studio stuff than any band I have seen lately. In spite of all the demands on the team to produce a sellable product, they still sold it for about the same price as a typical new release CD and much cheaper than many back catalog CD re-releases (re-mastered release). Many CD re-releases are on SACD format, a DRM format with a backwards compatible standard format layer. Many of these have degraded standard layers just to make the SACD layer sound better in comparison. DRM and lower quality standard layers are the reasons I don't touch that format. Higher prices is just another nail in it's coffin. I don't have a SACD player and have no plans to get one.

The RIAA thinks it's Piracy to blame. It is realy market reality. I buy DVD's, not CD's. The labels simply don't market to my demographic. They are desprately trying to keep the average selling price (ASP) high. They have suceeded. They have watched the volume drop because of it.

Movies on the other hand markets to most demographics. There is some premium content and lots of bargins. This alone is why I actualy look to see what DVD's are out, have memberships to both Blockbuster and Hollywood Video, dig in DVD bins, but don't bother even going into a music store. There is nothing for my demographic in there.

I don't bother transfering my DVD's to videotape. It's not due to copy protection. LP's were always transfered to Cassette due to the high cost.

DVD's and CD's are ripped to computer for convience and to prevent damage/loss. If you have little kids, you know what I'm talking about. Rip it, and lock away the original. I have too big of a collection of empty jewel cases that used to have a CD or DVD. Nobody knows where it is now. Movies and MP3's on a read only share doesn't suffer that fate.

Many SONY DreamWorks DVD's now have a copy protection logo. Looking it up brings up an education site telling you there is absolutely no reason to rip a CD to back it up. It also states there is no new copy protection on the DVD, but all DVD's are CSS protected as they always were. If you have kids, I beg a differ about not needing to back up DVD's.
From my own experiance and reading the fourms, Open Season seems to have some copy protection besides CSS. It looks like the Defective by Design crew is going to have to start a list of defective DVD's in addition to the defective CD's. I am going to have to stop buying SONY CD's or start returning them as defective.

Re:Similar to Vista.

[miskatonic alumnus]

Wal*Mart does not have a line of DVD's. They retail DVD's manufactured by studios. Other retailers also have bargin bins. They are the same DVD's currently being sold in Blockbuster and Hollywood Video.

A prime example.. Ice Age or Ever After.. New $5.99. or Used at Blockbuster.. $12.95 & 14.95 respectively. (or 2 for $20.00) I got Ice Age and Ever After at the grocery store new. I got Open Season and Flushed Away used at 2 for $20. When the product is exactly the same, the low price is not and indicator of low quality.

I understand all that. Nevertheless, a great many DVD's have poor quality transfers. That's a fact. So, when I pay $9.99 for one of them, I'm not getting a good deal. That would be the equivalent of purchasing a $4.99 LP that was scratched all to hell. Many films are being remastered and re-released, at a higher price than they were originally released. Some films had sorry transfers. Some were widescreen, but not anamorphic. Compare the two releases of The Great Escape --- Cheapo non-anamorphic version vs. double cost anamorphic re-release (with extras disc).

Anyway, to make a long story short, I don't think DVD's are necessarily a terrific value when compared to CD's. Some are (James Bond Ultimate Edition comes to mind). But the movie studios need to get on the ball and have some uniform standards for releasing a film onto DVD --- anamorphic with a new hi def transfer is preferable.

Re:Similar to Vista.

[Technician]

That's a fact. So, when I pay $9.99 for one of them, I'm not getting a good deal.

That is true. That is why I would rather pay $5.99 for it instead of $16.99 elswhere.

Many films are being remastered and re-released, at a higher price than they were originally released.

The same is true for many old audio recordings. Here is a prime example. It was mastered on analog tape with Dolby Pro noise reduction. In the mix the master tape for the original LP pressings was a 3rd generation tape. Now you can own it as a super duper high quality SACD. Sarcasm intentional..

The super fideliety recording in question? Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon.

How is a SACD recording oh so much better than a CD pressing from analog tape? Did they botch the CD pressing that badly?

The LP on the other hand is great.
I'm not fooled into buying a SACD copy at over $30 for a CD from a third generation analog tape.

HD-DVD Damage Control 101

[Anonymous Coward]

And here we go. HD-DVD damage control has moved into its final phase. After the release of the PS3 and it's very strong sales in all three regions and the inevitable explosion in BluRay disc sales, the damage control meme was "HD-DVD is getting outsold only by X amount, it should be getting outsold by even more"

Now that BluRay disc sales are up in the 4-1 vs HD-DVD and growing range, the damage control meme has changed to "BluRay and HD-DVD are only selling a small amount vs DVDs". Some HD-DVD fans have moved on to the "I never really cared about BluRay or HD-DVD anyway since highdef digital downloads are the future(25-50gig downloads per movie - yeah right...)

BluRay discs are selling at a faster rate than DVDs did when they started to become the dominant movie distribution format.

Re:HD-DVD Damage Control 101

[Anonymous Coward]

At the store where I work, BluRay has outsold HD-DVD 8-1 during the last few months.

We have sold 8 BluRay discs and only one HD-DVD disc.

On the other hand, we usually sell at least 50 DVDs on most days.

Re:HD-DVD Damage Control 101

[Dogtanian]

And here we go. HD-DVD damage control has moved into its final phase. Has Netcraft confirmed it, or is HD-DVD just pining for the fjords?

Re:HD-DVD Damage Control 101

[revengebomber]

Actually, HD movies are closer to 10gb. Haven't you tried to pirate any yet?

Re:HD-DVD Damage Control 101

[NorQue]

Higly doubt that 4-1 figure, never heard about it before. Substance please, gimme links. Preferably not ones from BluRay PR team.

Re:HD-DVD Damage Control 101

[-noefordeg-]

Why would you download a HD movie at 50 GB, when matroska encoded HD movie (including AC3 5.1 audio track) is between 4 and 8 GB? Sounds like a waste to me.
Other audio tracks can be downloaded separately.

Re:HD-DVD Damage Control 101

[CastrTroy]

That's what I hate about most of the stats they put out. They never put out the raw numbers. They always say that Blu-Ray sold X times more than HDDVD. But they never say that Blu-Ray sold 100 discs, while hddvd sold 20 discs. Because the numbers would be just to laugh at. The other argument is that Blu-Ray is doing a lot better then DVD was doing at the same point in it's life cycle. Well, DVD was the first real format to bring home movies to the masses. I don't really know anybody who owned more than 10 movies on VHS. People didn't buy movies for home when VHS was popular, because of the high price, and the fact that they degraded. Plus you could rent a movie for < $2 back then, which made buying them even more reason not to buy them. DVD was slow to catch on, because people weren't used to buying DVDs. Now I know people who buy a DVD every week, because the DVD only costs $15, and the rental costs $6, so you might as well buy it if you know you like it. Blu-Ray and HDDVD are flops because they have a very small percentage of the entire home movie business.

Re:HD-DVD Damage Control 101

[Anonymous Coward]

After the release of the PS3 and it's very strong sales in all three regions and the inevitable explosion in BluRay disc sales

Where are you getting this statement from? Your comment makes absolutely no sense. You state that "BluRay discs are selling at a faster rate than DVDs". TFA isn't talking about that. Your stating that this is basicly a HD-DVD ploy to excuse themselves. I'm sorry but maybe next time, at least read the summary which stated that Sony research report reveals some startlingly low sales numbers for other titles released on the next-gen formats.

Re:HD-DVD Damage Control 101

[endianx]

People didn't buy movies for home when VHS was popular Most people I know had VHS collections in the 30s to 50s.

Re:HD-DVD Damage Control 101

[Gilmoure]

It's one of those special Swedish films, with multiple angles to choose from?

Re:HD-DVD Damage Control 101

[Abcd1234]

Ummm... Matroska isn't an encoding, it's a container format, like AVI.

Re:HD-DVD Damage Control 101

[Anonymous Coward]

And most people I know had VHS collections in the 3-5 range...so #$#@$ what?

DVD was indeed slow to catch on...and it's one of the fastest technologies to catch on!! It seems like everyone is predicting doom if a new format doesn't catch on by tomorrow or next week at the latest...it's not going to happen!! It took at least several years for DVD to become common and I'd be really impressed if anything could top that.

Re:HD-DVD Damage Control 101

[iainl]

Actually, the released figures make like rather more complicated. The Departed leaps out for selling around 10,000 more on Blu-Ray than HD-DVD. But when you look at every other title, the two formats are either neck and neck or with a slight lead to Toshiba's format for the titles on both.

I'm not denying that Blu-Ray is easily outselling HD-DVD overall, but the detailed figures suggest that this is because the studio support is better. I strongly suspect that The Departed's figures are due to the fact that the HD-DVD is more expensive due to having the SD on the other side.

Right now, the formats seem to be getting sold to two camps. Firstly, there are PS3 owners looking to give their box some work. How many of these people go back to cheap DVDs when they have more games to give their expensive new toy some work has yet to be seen.

Secondly, there are the A/V nutters (myself included). A lot of them have both formats already, and so buy the cheaper one. There are some really painful numbers in the release for Universal, particularly the Bourne and Kong ones, but both Universal and Warner are seeing catalogue sales much better for individual titles on HD-DVD than the crap that Fox is shovelling out the door by the bucketload.

So while I think I've got the wrong horse with my HD-DVD player, there's no reason to switch until 2008 for me, and I don't think Universal will go multiformat until the end of the year at the earliest.

Some Blu-Ray, HD DVD titles selling like crazy...

[ilmdba]

FTA: "While we should note that the VideoScan numbers are not all-inclusive (for example, they don't include discs sold at Wal-Mart or some online merchants)"

Yeah cause it's not like Walmart or some online merchants contribute much to home video sales...

I hate to break it to anonymous submitter, but depending on when a disk was released, it may have -zero- reported sales when a summary report like this is generated. And said movies may very well suck anyway, and not be selling for that reason alone.

So much for the sensationalist submission title.

Strong sales

[Anonymous Coward]

"Casino Royale" is being sold in a bundle with the PS3 in my country. Could this be where many of the sales of that particular movie are coming from?

Re:Strong sales

[Dogtanian]

"Casino Royale" is being sold in a bundle with the PS3 in my country. Could this be where many of the sales of that particular movie are coming from? You're right, I think this applies to the UK(?). At any rate, it's notable that companies love to manipulate sales figures to give the impression of market share. (My parents saved a lot of money on their last car because it was "pre-registered" by the makers so they could include it in "on the road" figures. Same unused car, but because it was somehow "second hand"- except it wasn't- they saved a bundle.) Casino Royale may be popular, but I have trouble believing it's really that far ahead without taking the promotion into account; and I've no doubt that Sony included those units in the "Sony's 'Casino Royale' smashed high-def records by shipping 100,00 units to retail "

Re:Strong sales

[Anonymous Coward]

"Casino Royale" is being sold in a bundle with the PS3 in my country. Could this be where many of the sales of that particular movie are coming from?

You're right, I think this applies to the UK(?).

Yes it does apply to the UK. It doesn't apply to the US though, which is where the sales are reportedly high.

But to avoid -1, didn't bash Sony: Hey, I heard they eat babies.

Re:Strong sales

[DaFork]

You're Right

Did you read the article you linked to? The first 500,000 users who register on the PlayStation Network will receive a copy. Every time they did this in the past, they shipped the disc directly to the registered user and not to retail.

Besides, they sold 200,000 PS3s the first two weeks in the UK and the Casino Royal numbers two weeks after the UK launch launch were only 100,000. I think that the majority of new PS3 users would register for their free disc; therefore the free offer numbers are obviously not represented in those sales numbers.

Re:Strong sales

[skitzophile]

If this were the case, shouldn't the movie Talladega Nights that came bundled in the US have more sales? Something like 500,000 units were shipped of those.

Re:Strong sales

[apoc06]

considering the fact that they bundled 500,000 units with the consoles in the UK, if they were including those as sales wouldnt the number be alot higher? if you want to finagle the numbers, 500K sounds alot more impressive than 100,000.

secondly, they reported substantial numbers in the US and have not mentioned UK or european sales yet.

finally, if you are so convinced that they are embellishing their numbers, why is the 100,000 figure noteworthy for them when they also bundled talledega nights with the US release of the PS3. in fact, considering that there are over a million US PS3 sales all of the free bundles would be sold by now. however if you reference the figures, sony is only reporting ~20,000 total sales of talledega nights.

i know alot of slashdotters seem to be weary of sony and all, but its hard to see a lie where there isnt one. in fact, the point of this article was sony is admitting to the huge gap in sales figures; you have a few blockbusters selling tens of thousands, but half of the libraries titles are selling only a few hundred.

Re:Strong sales

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides, they sold 200,000 PS3s the first two weeks in the UK

Um no. They sold 165,000 day one, they sold the rest over the remaining 13 days. The casino royale bundle was only for retail at certain stores.

Re:Strong sales

[Caffeinate]

Tasteless and totally off-topic reply, but this just reminded me of a funny story . . . (insert wave-dream transition)

My brother-in-law loves to pose the philosophical hypothetical situation of a person stuck on the stereotypical desert island with a baby. Question is, would you eat the baby (if you do, you survive; if you don't and you die, the baby's screwed anyway).

When he posed this to a friend of ours there was a slight pause at which point he responded (as I would imagine Sony would) . . .

"Is there a blender on the island?"

Re:Strong sales

[mink]

There is some kind of promotion involving Casino Royal in the US, I saw something about it in stores, but didnt pay much attention.

Is the trend the same for DVD?

[bunbuntheminilop]

Do these trends corrolate to DVD? I assume the numbers would be higher for DVD, but is the overall trend the same, with a sharp drop off in, say, the top 50 DVD sales. The same goes for CD music and movie ticket sales.

its cuz they cost soooo much!

[Jah Shaka]

i am sure it has nothing to do with the fact that a regular dvd is under $20 bucks and the hd dvds are like 50-60 bucks.... so do the math for someone who usually buys 2-3 dvd's to bring home to the family... who the hell wants to dish out that cash when component dvd looks so good anyway?

Re:its cuz they cost soooo much!

[king-manic]

Over here in Canada, A DVD would be 10-30 bucks. The mode being about 19.95. A Blu ray dist is between 20.00 - 50.00 with a mode around 29.95. It's not that big of a price premium here and most DVD's under 19.95 are often clearance items or really old/bad movies. The 19.95 blu-rays are just older movies. HD DVD seem to be priced a bit higher. I haven't payed as much attention. As for DVD's. A progressive scan DVD player does not hold up well to a Bluray-HDDVD player on a 790(p/i) or 1080(p/i) screen. Even on a 480(i/p) there is a noticeable but much smaller difference. Those who can afford it are migrating. The rest will upgrade eventually. Like how the VHS clung on for years. The luddites/poor migrate slowly. In 6 years you'll be complaining how bluray is good enough and this new fangled online delivery is queer and will not succeed.

Re:its cuz they cost soooo much!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it's because most people remember the VHS/BetaMax format war and don't want to end up with a house full of unusable media again. I'm certainly waiting for a winner to be declared before I spend the first penny on high definition DVDs.

Re:its cuz they cost soooo much!

[Suspended_Reality]

"Like how the VHS clung on for years" I'm not sure why you're being modded insightful. The adoption of DVD over VHS was the fastest migration to a new format in the history of the world.

Re:its cuz they cost soooo much!

[mr_matticus]

It also gave us so much more. Computer DVD-ROMs existed from the beginning, and portable (battery-powered) players appeared almost instantly (at outrageous prices initially, but still). We got amazing picture, no degradation with multiple plays, multiple languages/subtitles, special features and extras, interactive menus, scene selection, no need to rewind at the end, a pause button that would actually let you see the frame, and a much smaller physical medium. It also brought us 5.1 surround sound for the first time and crystal-clear picture for any television.

HD/BD gives us better picture (on large enough displays to see it) if we have HDTVs and the right connections. Whoop-de-damn-doo. The picture is pretty amazing if done properly (bad mastering still has artifacts and fuzziness), but come on. We don't have portable playing options (almost no computer playback or handheld devices), and there is zero advantage on a standard-definition set. The movies should have been introduced at the exact same price as DVDs. The player hardware's outrageous prices could recoup the R&D costs. All in all, I'm unimpressed, very much like Laserdisc.

Re:its cuz they cost soooo much!

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

The rest will upgrade eventually. Like how the VHS clung on for years. The luddites/poor migrate slowly.

This more than luddism. Some of us genuinely believe that DVD is actually superior due to its broken DRM, and the huge price difference in players, discs, and equipment required to get the most out of the hardware. When (not if) those two factors dissolve, I'm sure DVDs will be as common as VHS is right now.

Re:its cuz they cost soooo much!

[drinkypoo]

Computer DVD-ROMs existed from the beginning, and portable (battery-powered) players appeared almost instantly

Battery-powered VHS was somewhat uncommon but portable and 12V players were quite regular.

multiple languages/subtitles

some DVDs are closed-captioned (if your TV supports it.) Lesser functionality but worth mentioning.

special features and extras

I have VHS tapes with this stuff after the movie. Some idiots put it before; I was going to watch the movie Harvey but they had that orville-reddenbacher looking motherfucker stewart on in front of the movie to ruin it for me and I no longer needed to watch it, so we took it back to the library.

a pause button that would actually let you see the frame

VCRs (and LaserDisc players) with a frame buffer could do this, too. I have one of each.

It also brought us 5.1 surround sound for the first time

While 5.1 is superior to Pro-Logic, it's not THAT superior.

and crystal-clear picture for any television

The problem here isn't just VHS technology, it's a cabling issue. A VHS looks immensely better playing on an S-Video VCR through S-Video or Component cables not because the S-VHS player is magic, but because the connection type is superior. The majority of VCRs are or at least were connected via RF and if you are lucky through composite video, which I think we can all agree looks like shit compared to S-Video or Component connections.

All your other points are good, and I think your overall point still stands, but frankly DVD needed precisely two things to succeed, and the second is derived from the first: random access, and you don't have to rewind it. Everything else pales by comparison.

As you say, HD-DVD or Blu-Ray, in comparison to DVD, gives us only a superior image quality. Only around 10% of households have the equipment to enjoy it, and in many of them it is actually misconfigured so they aren't actually enjoying it. Of those 10%, some lesser percentage actually can handle HDCP handshaking; some of them don't even have DVI, let alone HDMI. So if they are at all savvy then they know to be afraid that the protection flag may one day be turned on, and they may have to watch everything at a downgraded resolution or replace their TV again.

Re:its cuz they cost soooo much!

[sjames]

It's not really a matter of perceptable differences, it a matter of commonly perceived differences.

That is, I can perceive MPEG artifacts in satellite and DVD video. I can perceive the letterbox in wide format video. I can perceive the limits of focal depth in the cameras. I can even perceive the defects in human vision by focusing on something but paying attention to the peripheral vision.

When I'm watching TV though, I DON'T percieve any of those things because the objective is to enjoy the show, not a vision test. The big jump in media quality was the switch to a non-degrading digital format. HD is just icing.

Sur4prise, surprise

[Anne Thwacks]

Could this be connected with DVI cables costing > $100?

Who is going to spend this kind of money? Its not the amount. The conspicuous scam is morally unacceptable to the vasst masses of they buying public.

It is well documented that if your product is percieved as an over-priced scam, you will have a problem shifting anything. You might want to point the relevant companies to studies of "ethical economics".

Re:Sur4prise, surprise

[Professor_UNIX]

Could this be connected with DVI cables costing > $100?

Well, Blu-Ray and HD-DVD discs are actually really a higher quality image than regular DVD though. A $100 Monster HDMI or DVI cable however isn't going to perform much differently than a $15 generic version bought from Cables-to-Go or from Startech.

Re:Sur4prise, surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

DVI and HDMI cables were out long before HD-DVD and Blu-Ray and the prices they can be purchased at is rather low, if you aren't buying one of those branded ones sold at your electronics store.

It is well documented that if your product is percieved [sic] as an over-priced scam, you will have a problem shifting anything. You might want to point the relevant companies to studies of "ethical economics". In a related item, if your English and/or typing is perceived as rather poor, you will have a hard time winning any arguments. You might want to point such individuals to an English book or dictionary.

Re:Sur4prise, surprise

[Doppler00]

I bought a 10 foot DVI cable for $15 on newegg. Anyone who spends more is an idiot.

Re:Sur4prise, surprise

[iainl]

I bought a 2m HDMI cable with my upscaling player from the local supermarket for £1.99. It works just fine, thanks.

Re:Sur4prise, surprise

[Doppler00]

Nice! Actually, I would prefer all cables to be metric, but eh... what can you do?

Re:Some Blu-Ray, HD DVD titles selling like crazy.

[mr_matticus]

It doesn't look like these titles are all so new that you'd be correct (and anyway, new releases nearly always have greater weekly sales than ones that have been around awhile). The real story here is in comparing the HD/BD sales to regular DVD sales--the low rate reported here would probably remain quite low.

Even if Wal-Mart isn't on the list, weekly sales of less than 1000 copies isn't good news for the next-generation titles (particularly because all the HD/BD discs I've seen tend to be the "money makers"--not box office flops). Lots of the movies do suck, but that never stopped people from buying them in massive quantities on DVD or VHS.

The more pressing problem is that no one really needs these discs. There are about 30 million HDTV sets, which is still a small fraction of all televisions in this country. Of those, most people think DVDs look good enough. Why buy an expensive player with wacky DRM schemes and maybe-HDCP and all kinds of other bogus crap, only to have to buy more expensive movies that are presently nowhere NEAR the quality difference that DVD had over VHS? I have an HDTV, and I've seen some amazing HD-DVD content, but I was an early adopter of DVD players and I'm just not doing it again for HD/BD players. It's someone else's turn to fund the birth of this industry.

Wake me when I can get the player for $100 and the disc gives me something better than "great high-definition video mastering" on one of my TVs. I can play my DVDs anywhere, and they mostly look pretty good with progressive scan. Maybe that whole "multiple camera angles" vaporware from DVD would be a good thing to include so I could have some fun with my movies.

Not Similar to Vista.

[whyloginwhysubscribe]

I don't think that this can be compared to Vista. There are lots of reasons that the new HD formats aren't enjoying instant success.

• They are expensive and even more expensive if you include a high definition TV in the package
• People aren't sure which format will become successful - so many are waiting to see which one is more popular before committing
• As you say - what people have already is doing the job very well. It took a while for DVDs to take off and they added lots of features over VHS, but as VHS became less available and the price of DVDs came down, people took it up. The conversion from DVD to High Def formats has less advantages to me than from VHS to DVD
• You also mention DRM, and I think this does stop some people (e.g. slashdot readers) from buying the new formats - but the majority of people (e.g. my mother) doesn't know what DRM is and so won't even care (which is why she bought an ipod).

Re:Not Similar to Vista.

[bhtooefr]

One thing about the DRM thing... one example I've seen a few times is that some people want to make copies of VHS tapes or DVDs so that their kids don't destroy the main copy.

It's easier to do this on VHS or DVD - just buy a cheap Macrovision killer, and you can dub to VHS.

Re:Not Similar to Vista.

[gameforge]

I think everything in your list could be said about Vista as well - upgrading existing hardware, having too many options, having a suitable solution already (I personally thought XP Pro was a more important upgrade than Vista is, given that it's still supported), and while DRM might not be important for everyone, whoever it is important too will probably have issues with both new high-def video formats as well as Vista. In both cases, DRM can make the regular user experience more inconvenient as well as expensive, so that might catch the attention of other poorly-informed adopters.

Re:Not Similar to Vista.

[drew]

but the majority of people (e.g. my mother) doesn't know what DRM is and so won't even care (which is why she bought an ipod).

What's that have to do with anything? I know and care what DRM is, and don't have a single track of DRM'd music, but my wife and I both own iPods. Seems like a total non sequitur to me.

Re:Some Blu-Ray, HD DVD titles selling like crazy.

[king-manic]

It doesn't look like these titles are all so new that you'd be correct (and anyway, new releases nearly always have greater weekly sales than ones that have been around awhile). The real story here is in comparing the HD/BD sales to regular DVD sales--the low rate reported here would probably remain quite low.

Even if Wal-Mart isn't on the list, weekly sales of less than 1000 copies isn't good news for the next-generation titles (particularly because all the HD/BD discs I've seen tend to be the "money makers"--not box office flops). Lots of the movies do suck, but that never stopped people from buying them in massive quantities on DVD or VHS.

According to Sony, bluray is spread about as fast as DVD did. the early adopters grab it, show their friends, friends go out and but it when it hits their price range. Its what happens. A bit early and silly to call the format a dead end. Remember that for at least a year DVD greatly outsolf by VHS for most releases.

Re:Some Blu-Ray, HD DVD titles selling like crazy.

[king-manic]

You mention DRM to most buyers and they will think it's a "feature". I think price has more to do with it then DRM.

Be thankful

[realinvalidname]

...that even brick-and-mortar distribution allows for titles with modest sales numbers to find an audience. Consider this: you know those giant anime racks at Fry's and Best Buy? While there are many individual SKU's, few sell more than a handful. Teading NewType USA and AnimeOnDVD, I've seen a couple different writers note that many anime titles will sell only a few hundred copies region-wide in their entire lifetime. Production and distribution must be pretty efficient for that to be possible, right?

Having said that... don't cry for me, Argentina, I think the slow Blu-Ray sellers will survive. If you're bemoaning The Fifth Element only moving about 900 copies a week and making the top-10 for it, well, maybe your format needs more appealing films than 10-year-old sci-fi dreck that The Daily Show once called "the gay Star Wars."

Re:Be thankful

[DMoylan]

>If you're bemoaning The Fifth Element only moving about 900 copies a week and making the top-10 for it, well, maybe your format needs more appealing films than 10-year-old sci-fi dreck that The Daily Show once called "the gay Star Wars."

are you crazy? i'd consider fifth element to be one of the top 10 sci fi movies of all time (ok may be top 20 :-) ). that list would not include star wars (not trolling, just thought star wars was weak sci fi, good space opera).

less off topic. i have a copy of fifth element on dvd with a shelf load of other movies i liked and bought (i have bittorrents of some but i usually always try and get a legit copy) there is no compelling reason to get a blu ray or hd dvd version.
* the cost of a player alone puts me off (the cheapest is sony ps3 and there's no way i'm going to pay for that power hungry piece of crap).
* as a nerd i hate the drm crap they contain (treat me like a thief and i will behave like a thief!).
* more importantly i'm more likely these days to watch a movie on a handheld of some sort while travelling (nokia 770 currently, i might get an ipod video). this means converting the film i have into a portable format. these new formats make this more difficult and considering i'm lowering the quality of the movie that i will be watching completely pointless to have that extra resolution.

these companies don't get it. sony tried to break into the portable market with the psp umd discs and look how that turned out.

when a format better than dvd with the flexibility of dvd and the cost of dvd or less comes along then maybe i will switch. till then i'll keep checking the bargin bin at my local video shop.

Re:Be thankful

[drinkypoo]

are you crazy? i'd consider fifth element to be one of the top 10 sci fi movies of all time (ok may be top 20 :-) ). that list would not include star wars (not trolling, just thought star wars was weak sci fi, good space opera).

If Star Wars is fantasy (not that I disagree) then there is simply no justification for calling a movie in which the lead antagonist is a ball of molten something-or-other than can cool and solidify on contact and grows and gains power from being attacked with nuclear weapons and can cause hershey's syrup to flow out of your head by talking to you on the phone science-fiction. It's fantasy, Period, the end.

fonts

[cybpunks3]

HD needs big epic movies. Wait for Star Wars and Lord of the Rings to come out for it.

Casino Royale Blueray sales a promotional trick?

[tgatliff]

Is it just me, or does the weekly strength of Casino Royale look odd? I mean a > 900% difference to its closest compeitior?

Adding fuel to the fire, Casino Royale is produced by Sony Pictures... Is it possible that Sony could be trying to tip the hand in the HDDVD and BlueRay war by purchasing its own Blueray discs making it look like increased demand?

Re:Casino Royale Blueray sales a promotional trick

[Dogtanian]

Look elsewhere in the thread; Casino Royale is being bundled with many PS3s.

Re:Some Blu-Ray, HD DVD titles selling like crazy.

[bclark]

I've been tempted to upgrade, but the competition between the two formats is what has been holding me back. It's a catch-22; many, like myself, won't purchase a player until there's a clear winner in the format war, but there won't be a clear winner until people start buying the players and the movies. In the media companies' eyes, I'm probably in their target demographic. I watch tons of movies. I've had an HDTV for over a year now, because I needed a new TV and I wanted something future-proof. I have an Xbox 360, so for $200 I could buy an HD-DVD player. I've seen some demonstrations and the picture quality is significantly better. But, I've seen the Betamax and Laserdisc collections accumulating dust in neighbors' houses. I don't want to be stuck with that investment and a meager half a dozen movies when, perhaps in a year's time, the announcement is made the no more HD-DVDs will be produced and that Blu-Ray has won. I don't want to take the chance that the special HD editions of some old favorites are released for the other format. I wonder how many of those 30 million HDTV owners are in a similar situation, just biding their time.

Re:Some Blu-Ray, HD DVD titles selling like crazy.

[WindBourne]

And of course, when it IS selling, it may also be that either BG or the CEO of Sony has decided that all their friends or employees deserve that movie. And yes, this goes on ALL THE TIME. I would not be surprised to find out in the future that the first 6 months worth of sales were 95% derived that way. It is damn CHEAP marketing.

Re:Casino Royale Blueray sales a promotional trick

[tgatliff]

Nice... So if you are bundling the movie with PS3s, how does this constitute a "sale" of the movie? Meaning sony clearly knows what both numbers are.. :-)

Heck, by those sales metrics, people a couple of years ago were just clamoring for the AOL cd... In fact, I suspect it was the hottest cd of all times...

Re:Some Blu-Ray, HD DVD titles selling like crazy.

[WindBourne]

Actually, it is not that bad. In 1996, I started buying up DVDs because they were so cheap (at target, I paid $10; walmart did not even offer them; and the vast majority of the cd stores were not into video). Considering the rip off price of what they are selling (50-60), I agree with you. I will not touch these until the come WAY down.

Will Never Last...

[djfake]

What do you do with an aging format? Try to convince consumers that they need something better, and try to get them to buy the same thing twice. This whole HDVD/BLURAY sounds like another round of DVD-Audio, SACD, HDCD, business. So who's surprised with some low sales figures? The current CD and DVD standards are good enough, and the LCD usually wins.

Re:Will Never Last...

[Jugalator]

Nah, DVD isn't good enough, at least not for the coming larger displays. There can be a huge difference. However, price is the limiting factor here.

Re:Casino Royale Blueray sales a promotional trick

[Anonymous Coward]

Yay, informative. Again. The reported high sales of Casino Royale are in the US. The PS3 bundles are not in the US. It is entirely probably that Sony, and Toshiba, are inflating their sales numbers but this repeated "it's because it's bundled ha ha", +informative, crap is getting really old. It's been pointed out over and over and over again that it isn't true. Anyone with an attention span longer than 1 minute knows that it isn't. Please please please come up with some new BS instead of regurgitating this over and over again. Thank you.

Re:Casino Royale Blueray sales a promotional trick

[AmiAthena]

Heck, by those sales metrics, people a couple of years ago were just clamoring for the AOL cd... In fact, I suspect it was the hottest cd of all times... Certainly, by that logic, AOL was the all-time favorite artist in my family. I've never owned 15+ copies of any other CD at once. Not that I was TRYING to own 15+ copies of the AOL CD; it just somehow happened. Between mass mailing, and copies included with every computer publication my mom brought home in the 90's, they just sort of accumulated. I can't say that I regret it, though: how else would I have found out what happens to CD's when you put them in the microwave- repeatedly?

What about your target audience?

[Firethorn]

On the other hand, consider the market, right now, for Blueray/HD: Rich technogeeks and videophiles. Both of which are much more likely to be within the .01% of the market that cares about DRM. Heck, many of the videophiles may have been burned with DAT. Most people with the money do be dumping $3k into an entertainment system will be older, old enough to remember VHS vs Betamax.

From what I understand, even many of the early HDTVs don't have the correct plugs for these players for full resolution.

Format War: Not good
Having to buy movies again(at 2X the price): NG
DRM: NG
~$2k to see the difference at home: NG (yes, I'm including the price for a HDTV; market penetration for those are still bad, after all).

Result: Slow adoption. Could even be termed 'niche market', at least for now. The analysts may have said that blue ray is catching on as fast as DVD, but not faster if you look at it as a percentage. Most of that came from Casino Royale sales. I think that an important point would be that the HD standards require a new TV, DVD didn't. So I think that you have will see a brief surge of (rich or spendthrift) buyers to help justify the HDTVs they already purchased. After that, it'll be much more difficult.

I'd like to have HDTV, ps3, etc... But I baulk at the price tag every time. I could go cheaper if I was willing to have HDTV in monitor sizes (27"), but I want one at least as big as my current 32" TV. Add in that I don't have cable or satellite and you'll see that my available content is limited and expensive. Not time to adopt yet.

Heck, with the whole casino royale best seller thing I wonder how many people bought the HD discs by mistake, thinking they were getting some kind of deluxe version, but still playable on their DVD player?

Re:What about your target audience?

[king-manic]

Result: Slow adoption. Could even be termed 'niche market', at least for now. The analysts may have said that blue ray is catching on as fast as DVD, but not faster if you look at it as a percentage. Most of that came from Casino Royale sales. I think that an important point would be that the HD standards require a new TV, DVD didn't. So I think that you have will see a brief surge of (rich or spendthrift) buyers to help justify the HDTVs they already purchased. After that, it'll be much more difficult.

I'd like to have HDTV, ps3, etc... But I baulk at the price tag every time. I could go cheaper if I was willing to have HDTV in monitor sizes (27"), but I want one at least as big as my current 32" TV. Add in that I don't have cable or satellite and you'll see that my available content is limited and expensive. Not time to adopt yet.

Heck, with the whole casino royale best seller thing I wonder how many people bought the HD discs by mistake, thinking they were getting some kind of deluxe version, but still playable on their DVD player?

What do you mean by percentage? percentage of media sold? number of media sold? percent of my profit? back end royalties? The numbers in absolute term resemble DVD except adjusted for pop growth.

Video mis-sold are often returned. I'd hazzard it was a fairly small percentage since the stuff is in it's own isle most of the time. The HDTV adoption rate is increasing. HDTV's are now a large percentage of new TV purchases. They have then in various price ranges. It's pretty hard to deny at this point that the next format is goign to be bluray and it's catchign on about as fast as DVD. Time will tell but You seem against HDTV coming? Don't buy if you don't want it/afford it.

ps. Most sets came with at least composite plugs. That buys you 1080i. DVI/HDMI gets you to 1080p. There were some corner cases of really old sets doing 790(i/p) only. But they are uncommon. Most are at least 1080i.

Re:What about your target audience?

[Cowclops]

"Really old sets" doing "790(i/p)" only? First off, 1080i and 720p are the standard HD resolutions. Interlacing is a trick only avaliable on CRT sets, so most current tvs are not "at least" 1080i, but rather they ARE 720p. The native resolution of the LCD/DLP/whatever panel is usually either 1280x720 or 1366x768, except for on the not-quite-yet widespread 1080p sets.

And, composite video is for low quality 480i. Component video allows 1080i/720p, but of course only on a high definition set. There are plenty of TVs out there with component video that only handle 480i.

Re:What about your target audience?

[Comboman]

The HDTV adoption rate is increasing. HDTV's are now a large percentage of new TV purchases.

The keyword there is new TV purchases. If my 12-year-old 32" Panasonic dies today, then yes, I'll go out and buy a HDTV; but not a minute sooner than I have to (the longer I wait, the cheaper they get). Given that most TV's last at least 10 years, even if every new TV sold was HDTV, you're looking at 10 years to get 100% market penetration.

Re:What about your target audience?

[apoc06]

thats assuming a steady rate. dont forget the FCC broadcast changeover is coming up pretty soon.

while it doesnt necessitate people being required to buy new TVs, alot of consumers will buy new TVs because they "think" they need to. that and the fact that salesmen will try to capitalize on those consumers that walk into a store and dont know any better.

Re:What about your target audience?

[apoc06]

by that point, i can imagine HDTV adoption rates doubling or tripling; just like the release of HD-optimized gaming systems and movie players have increased HDTV adoption thusfar.

Re:What about your target audience?

[drinkypoo]

thats assuming a steady rate. dont forget the FCC broadcast changeover is coming up pretty soon.

Not all HDTVs actually include a HD OTA tuner; on top of that it will be possible to view digital television on an analog set through the use of a converter/tuner box. The broadcast changeover will influence some people, but only people with money (or willing to go into debt) who have probably already purchased an HDTV.

Re:What about your target audience?

[drew]

I was under the impression that anyone who actually cared about watching TV already had cable, so I don't imagine this being a really big motivating factor to buy a new TV.

Re:What about your target audience?

[shimage]

Just a nitpick, but LCD sets are almost always either 1366x768 or 1080p (the break seems to be between 37" and 42" sets). DLP sets are usually 1080p, although you can still find the occasional 720p set (the point being, that it's always either 720p or 1080p, and not something in between). Plasmas are usually 1024x768. At least, that's how it is where I shop. It's probably different elsewhere. I don't think you can call a WXGA screen "720p", although it will certainly accept input at that resolution.

Re:What about your target audience?

[Maltheus]

From what I understand, even many of the early HDTVs don't have the correct plugs for these players for full resolution.

I think of DRM as a kind of joke most of the time, since it's so easy to circumvent. I'm against it in principle, but it's always been more of an academic issue to me. But what you said, struck a cord. That's the reason I never got an HD player. As far as I know, there are no HD players that'll do component out (this may have changed, but it was the case when I looked into it). If there are now any players that do component, then what are the odds that I'll have much choice? I'll only buy an HD player when I'm ready to upgrade my TV to something that's HDMI ready. I guess the DRM issue hasn't been so academic in my life after all. And the only outcome in this case was lost sales for the electronics and movie companies and some money saved for me. And yet pirated copies are available for download despite all of this, so I'm not sure what was gained in risking those sales.

Re:What about your target audience?

[geko29]

Actually you were mistaken when you did your research previously. ALL HD DVD and Blu-Ray players can output HD resolutions via component. EVERY SINGLE ONE. That's 720p and 1080i for all models, and 1080p for those that support it. The only thing they can't do via component is upconvert SD content to HD resolutions, but that's no different than conventional upconverting players and is the result of restrictions placed on analog output by the DVD rules. But for content that's sourced in HiDef, no worries.

I did this myself with my Toshiba HD-A1, which was the first player released in either format a year ago. I did eventually hook it up via HDMI/DVI because I wanted SD upconversion, but HD DVDs look fantastic with either connection. The original Samsung BDP-1000 Blu-Ray player was the same way, and every HD and BR player since has been no different.

Re:What about your target audience?

[Maltheus]

Thanks, maybe I should start looking for a player then. Although I guess I'd have to keep my existing DVD player (Oppo 970) as it does support upconversion over component. Not sure how though, they claim it doesn't. I wasn't about to complain. However many argue that upconversion is pointless, so maybe I shouldn't be concerning myself with it at all.

Re:What about your target audience?

[frankShook]

Cowclops, I couldn't agree more.

Fact is, the HDTV standard has become perverted by fixed-resolution monitors like LCD, DLP and Plasma. The original HDTV standard was written for CRT sets that can change the number of scan lines to match signal resolution. Widescreen sets did a neat trick with by scan width for anamorphic 16x9. Current fixed-resolution devices don't match the 480i of DVD, so on-the-fly interpolation is required. They also can't do true anamorpic. To me the result looks more like a cartoon than HDTV.

Recently I thought I was impressed with my friend's new DLP, capable of 1080. Back at home, I was reminded that, for all its flaws, my ancient 4x3 CRT is REAL HDTV. There was all of the detail and resolution that first struck me with HD. I haven't yet been so impressed with fixed-res monitors like DLP or Plasma.

In truth, the 480p of DVD is only a few lines short of the premier 520p resolution of HD. With BluRay, Sony is merely exploiting the resolution gap in fixed-res monitors.

Re:What about your target audience?

[gdrumm0356]

My son bought a PS3 because he didn't have to worry about a player when he eventually gets an HDTV.

I needed a replacement for my 27" Sony, and found a 36" Sony (KD-XS955) for $900 new/stand. It will do up to 1080i HDTV, in fact it upconverts if it can. The picture is fantastic and the hires Trinitron really shows good DVDs better than larger HDTVs my family and friends have.

Bigger is nicer, but I haven't seen anything larger than my (~32") HDTV with a better quality picture. I don't have HDTV on my cable yet, but the wide screen picture when I tune the HD channels is just about as good as a DVD!

I live in an apt. Even though my 36", 238lbs, CRT takes up more room than a flat screen HDTV, or as much as a DLP projection TV, I'm happy, and with my 4 yr warranty, I can wait for the HD wars to end and prices drop.

If it weren't for the continual DRM problems with my MCE boxes, I might think about getting a better display card, but my Toshiba DVD/VHS player works fine with HDMI and other interfaces.

There is another Reason...

[RotateLeftByte]

Quote
When disc sales of under 1000 can land you on a weekly best-sellers list, you know your format is in its infancy."
End Quote

OR, the format is in its death throws.

A Luddite on Slashdot!

[Anonymous Coward]

Call me a luddite, but I don't really care about the quality of the sound and image. I just like entertaining movies. And I can get movies that I like in the 5$ bin at Wal Mart. Who needs to spend the money on a new TV, new player, new library of discs, and assorted cables and gadgets, when my computer and a handfull of old movies suits me just fine.

Re:A Luddite on Slashdot!

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

> Who needs to spend the money...?

People who do care about the quality of the sound and image. That was easy. Next question please.

Re:A Luddite on Slashdot!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not a Luddite, you're a regular sane person.

Gadget Nerds, for some odd reason, love to masturbate over new technology, even if it has no purpose and costs more than an arm and a leg. I don't get it, and I never will, but I'm laughing all the way to the bank because I don't foolishly waste my money on utterly pointless things like a $2000 television.

BUT IT HAS MORE PIXELSZES!!!!!!!!!!!

ugh.

Re:A Luddite on Slashdot!

[GodfatherofSoul]

Mom, what are you doing posting on Slashdot? This site is for geeks!

Doomed to fail?

[fastest fascist]

I can't help but wonder if it is too late in the game to be introducing new physical distribution formats. Here's why: The benefits of HD can only be appreciated on an HD-capable TV-set. I don't see the masses rushing out to buy new sets until their old ones fail. Certainly, there are some who are willing to pay for the quality upgrade even if their old set works fine, and anyone buying a new TV now may well get an HD-capable one, if the price is right. But I do think that it will be up to 10 years before the transition to HD is truly widespread. Now, look 10 years into the future. Is it likely that physical media will still be a significant form of distribution for consumer entertainment? I find that very doubtful. To sum up, by the time there is real demand for HD content, there will not be much demand for content distributed on discs.

The best for another 20 years....

[martijnd]

You might actually already have seen the best format ever in BlueRay / HD-DVD-- for at least another 20 years.

Online delivery will be much like what MP3's did to those caring about audio quality, instead of going to a higher fidelity format it will go to low bandwidth, high compression (eg. much worse picture quality). But who cares when you can have any movie produced in the last 100 years directly accessible from the (pick a name) Apple iMovie website? That is the kind of choice my local videostore doesn't deliver (which basically has some big names, a good kiddie section, and a couple of slasher shelves). I do have a quickish & unlimited (read a 650Mb ISO takes 10 mins around these waters, and there are no caps) ADSL line, so here is me hoping.

Now the USA seems to have this mail order video store business -- but something like this is not available around where i live; and the video pirates only have the latest holywood trash. I read a lot of overseas newspapers -- and some of the movies reviewed sound positively interesting but without shelling out big $$$ at Amazon + international shipping there is no way of getting to see them.

Re:Some Blu-Ray, HD DVD titles selling like crazy.

[mr_matticus]

Absolutely DRM is irrelevant to customers, as long as it's seamless. Macrovision and FairPlay and the like work great. HDCP is a disaster, though, so DRM will matter to consumers to the extent that they won't have any idea whether their home theater setup will work, end-to-end. You need a compliant TV, receiver, and player with the proper connections all the way through with some of the DRM proposals involved here. That's definitely going to be a source of "what's wrong with my Bluray player?" for customers.

It's not the DRM, it's the fact that this is the most poorly executed mass-market DRM yet released.

Re:Some Blu-Ray, HD DVD titles selling like crazy.

[mr_matticus]

I didn't say the format was a dead-end, and I certainly don't expect it to take off immediately. The problem is that it's at best an intermediate step between DVD and something substantially better. DVD is good enough, and the "next most awesome thing" will have arrived before everyone gets on the HD/BD bandwagon. Even when the price comes down, what do you really get? Better image quality, if you've got the right setup and connection types, and if you're watching on a display big enough for it to make a clear difference over progressive-scan DVDs. DVD brought us special features and language tracks, and picture and audio (5.1 in your home!) that was light years ahead of VHS on any television set and didn't degrade with frequent play. You could also take it with you in battery powered devices and play them on your computers from the beginning.

HD/BD gives us a better picture and possible connection headaches if HDCP takes hold. That's it, and it takes away the portable devices and computer playing (mostly). Remember that DVD as a format has been around for a decade, and at some point customers aren't going to replace their video collections every decade. I'm thinking that time is now, especially since they're not really giving us much in return for adopting this.

Re:Some Blu-Ray, HD DVD titles selling like crazy.

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I suspect that most people will think DRM is whatever their techie friends tell them it is.

And in this case, far more than in the case of DVD, early adopters/techie consumers will have been stung by things like buying a very expensive television with HD resolution and later finding they can't watch either of the new formats on that TV because it doesn't have an HDCP connection. The geeks are also wise now to the fact that disabling technologies are a PITA, since they've sat through numerous tedious copyright notices or even trailers that can't be skipped while waiting for DVDs they've paid for to start up. The idea that their system can be shut down on a whim by the same Big Media groups who imposed that sort of rubbish on us last time is not likely to sit well with them, and they are unlikely to speak well of it to friends.

Although, having said all of that, DRM is starting to become a "dirty word" to the general public, too. On the BBC News web site, in a poll on an article about DRM, an overwhelming majority of respondents (something like 90%) said there were too many restrictions on digital content. Now, sure, that isn't a proper statistical study, but then again, it's also a survey on one of the most popular web sites in the UK, with an audience drawn from the general public rather than geeks. Combine that with the music industry finally starting to realise its mistake, and the issue gets a much higher profile than it used to, even with non-geeks.

Re: Similar to Vista

[justthinkit]

The one thing HD discs do better is carry more bits. Already we are seeing movies released in 3 and 4-DVD packages -- that is a lot of disc shuffling that can be reduced. TV series are commonly on 7-disc sets (e.g. Lost, The Wild Wild West) -- one Blu-Ray could hold this.

I think (and hope) future movie discs will have even more commentary tracks, and extras. Already DVDs are a great value, once one has filtered out the 98% of movies that suck. I look forward to Lawrence of Arabia with twice the quality of the current two-DVD package, and one or more commentary tracks. HD "Stuck On You", not so much.

I hope also, perhaps unrealistically, that the commentary tracks are also available in an unencumbered form (even if at super low quality) so I can listen to them while I commute, and work. I can dream, can't I?

Re: Similar to Vista

[Technician]

Already we are seeing movies released in 3 and 4-DVD packages -- that is a lot of disc shuffling that can be reduced. TV series are commonly on 7-disc sets (e.g. Lost, The Wild Wild West) -- one Blu-Ray could hold this.

Somehow I expect to see this at about the same time as I see the entire Beatles catalog released on an MP3 CD at 192 Kbs ready to load into your iPod, Zen, iRiver, or Zune. (not counting the release in the flea market from someone's trunk)

The ability to put more data content on a single disk does not mean they will. HD will be reserved for HD content, not collections of SD shows. CD's will be reserved for CD format audio (with a few exceptions of extra DRM digital tracks and DRM player for your Windows PC. To fit on the redundant tracks, the digital content is at low bitrates and the CD holds less music to make space.)

Re:Some Blu-Ray, HD DVD titles selling like crazy.

[wfberg]

I wonder how many of those 30 million HDTV owners are in a similar situation, just biding their time.

Well, they probably all have 720 sets, which means they'll be miffed in a few years when 1080 is mainstream, anyway.
I wouldn't touch a HD TV unless it's 2160 (twice 1080 and three times 720, so upscaling will work neatly for both). Most sets I see on the market now are 768, and since no-one is looking at those through letterboxes, it means they're upscaling from 720 to 768, which is pitiful. You're better off upscaling divx movies from bittorrent on your computer screen.

Nobody needs/wants it

[EvilGoodGuy]

I still only know one person with an HD TV aside from my parents. And it's not the money, it's just a lack of desire. Sure it's an upgrade, but it's just not that big of a deal to the average user. And I know many are still trying to figure out what to do with their VHS tapes. I'm not willing to accept that DVD is dead.

Re:Nobody needs/wants it

[cparker15]

I still don't know anybody who has an HDTV. I doubt I'll be making the upgrade anytime soon. I saw an HDTV set in a Best Buy once, sitting next to a standard LCD TV, and I just didn't see much of a difference. Definitely not enough to warrant that much of a price difference.

Even if I ever did get an HDTV and an HD media player (e.g.: HD-DVD), I wouldn't re-buy all of the movies I already have. My DVDs are more than enough. Suggesting that I buy the same thing all over again is akin to suggesting that I give my paycheck away to that disabled veteran single parent panhandler begging weekends in the middle of the sidewalk, despite knowing that he has no kids, was a draft-dodger in his youth, and has a $60K salary during the week in construction. It just ain't happenin'. Know what I'm sayin'?

Re:Casino Royale Blueray sales a promotional trick

[Anonymous Coward]

It may also have something to do with the fact that Casino Royale is currently the only Blue-Ray movie that doesn't suck and has not been shown on free TV yet. Just look at the user ratings on imdb.org: If you only want to buy one movie to see on your new PS3, would you really consider getting one of the others?

As an early adopter, it's kinda "meh"

[eudaemon]

I don't want to come off as one of those old "get off my lawn" guys reminiscing
about walking barefoot in the snow to school every day... BUT

When Laser Disc came out, it was definitely a video-phile's format in that publishers
like criterion rushed to make the very best discs possible. They would remaster prints,
add interview audio tracks with directors, create great liner notes, etc, etc.
Discs were made for movie lovers by movie lovers.

DVDs saw the same sort of attention when it was first released, but in my opinion not
to the same degree.

And now we have HD-DVD and Blu-Ray and what's available on this awesome new format?
It's not Kurosawa's Seven Samurai, it's Tom Cruise's The Last Samurai. It's not
The Lord of The Rings, it's Eragon.

Meh.

Re:As an early adopter, it's kinda "meh"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not all bad. Kurasawa's Ran will be getting a release shortly in the UK (easy for USAians to import). The Lord of the Rings trilogy is on the cards. Casablanca was one of the first HD DVDs I bought. And there are numerous classics and modern classics on the cards for release (Can't wait to see The Maltese Falcon in Hi Def). 2001: A Space Odyssey and Blade Runner are my two most anticipated titles. In the meantime, I have a list of films as long as my arm that I want to buy that are out now.

Yes, there is way too much motr Holywood tripe on HD and BRD, but I'm optimistic that it won't stay that way forever.

Re:As an early adopter, it's kinda "meh"

[HungWeiLo]

The Seven Samurai and The Last Samurai mentioned in the same sentence.

Reader disregards context and head explodes.

Re: Similar to Vista

[CastrTroy]

While you are right, they could just keep the same number of discs, and remove all the copy protection, so that we could just buy the disc, put in on a hard drive, and never have to swap discs again. Until bandwidth increases to the point where downloading isn't a complete pain in the ass, using the standard disc distribution method could work really well.

Re: Similar to Vista

[justthinkit]

Ah, come on, some good stuff will slip past the guards ;-)

A DVD like "The Corporation" is quite amazing for how much is jammed on it -- 6 hours of interviews plus a 2 hour movie, all on a "2 hour" DVD. And recently companies are putting out 2 movies on one DVD -- "48HRS / Another 48HRS" comes to mind. In an HD world this could be "Batman 1 2 3 4 5" on one HD disc. Sure it wouldn't be the special editions, but it would still be handy for a Batman marathon (even though I only really like the first and last ones. I'm more likely to have a Lethal Weapon, Robert De Niro, Mel Gibson or David Fincher marathon.)

I see the movie studios responding to the market better than the record companies. Yes DVDs started off ridiculously expensive, but now they are ridiculously cheap (unless you like the BBC). Also, the special editions have become the standard editions in many cases. Called double dipping when done too soon after the first release, this is a huge value add and I love it. Run a search on Amazon (I did 500 such searches recently when I was updating my favorite movies page) and you will be amazed at the value.

Like buying a new machine in 2006 to forestall having Vista rammed down their throat, now is a great time to stock up on DVDs. And I think the same will be true with HD discs in a few years. No they probably won't be unencumbered, but they will bring value and I will probably get an HD player. Beethoven's 9 symphonies alone were enough to get me to buy a CD player.

I still like the idea that some portion of HD content is unencumbered. I think it is natural that the more time-consuming stuff to listen to (face it, you never need to watch the extras) like "Making ofs" and director commentaries be available in MP3 form. Make it 24kbps or something, I would be more than happy with that. While you are at it, ban the group commentaries -- those truly suck. If someone has something to say, use all that space to put it on a separate track, or at least manage it like the excellent Bond Double Oh 7 editions do.

Let's see... the checklist!

[TommyBear]

- Story is about Sony, Blu-Ray or PS3 CHECK!
        - Story is negative CHECK!
        - Story has a childish tag CHECK!
        - Story is submitted by Zonk CHECK!
        - Zonk is still an editor here CHECK!

Re:Let's see... the checklist!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a story about Sony from Sony. Wow! You're right, Zonk is very biased.

Re:Let's see... the checklist!

[TommyBear]

Thank God someone agrees with me!

Re:Some Blu-Ray, HD DVD titles selling like crazy.

[Anonymous Coward]

You mention DRM to most buyers and they will think it's a "feature".

Um, usually these kinds of tests are done outside of one's immediate family.

Re:Some Blu-Ray, HD DVD titles selling like crazy.

[Fezmid]

"HD/BD gives us a better picture and possible connection headaches if HDCP takes hold. That's it, "

Not to pick nits, but it gives superior audio as well. Everyone focuses on the video quality, but the AQ is leaps and bounds better too.

Oh come on...

[TommyBear]

The article that is attached to this story is at least neutral, but the negative spin placed on the article by the editor in question is just plain childish.

Firstly, yes DVD discs are going to sell a shitload more because there are MORE DVD PLAYERS out there. I was an early adopter of DVD and I know how the slowly sales went for the first 2 years. They went up slowly. So saying something like "yeah we sell like 5 BDs to 1 HD-DVD, but we sold like 80 DVDs", should be met with a big "well duh! really?".

Secondly, regardless of which format dominates, the fact that they sell only 200 or 1000 a month (in which territory?), still means that the product is selling 200 or 1000 units a week, and this is not a failure (revisit first point), these items will be on sales for a very long time. So until everyone owns a HD disc player of some kind, you are not going to see massive sales.

Re:Oh come on...

[drinkypoo]

The article that is attached to this story is at least neutral, but the negative spin placed on the article by the editor in question is just plain childish.

Are you talking about the editor of TFA, or Zonk? Because the only 'spin' Zonk put on the article was the name of the department from which the article supposedly originates. The rest of the text is from the cowardly reader... unless of course your allegation is that Zonk constructed the "submission" himself.

Or perhaps you're talking about the author of TFA? Since we clearly can't tell what influence any editor at High-Def Digest (could be a one man show for all I know) had on the article. But you don't make that clear.

Personally I found the following to be interesting (from TFA):

"Among the numbers revealed: as of March 18, VideoScan put the cumulative number of Blu-ray titles sold since the format's inception at 844,000 units, versus HD DVD at 708,600."

Now let's see... a little over 130,000 more discs sold, what's that, 15%ish? Now how many of those 844,000 units were copies of Casino Royale (a movie which I personally thought sucked) that were bundled with PS3s? You can't call those sales, because many people who received them would never have purchased the movie...

The Reason: Choices Suck

[miyako]

I have a PS3 and an HDTV, I generally buy 2-3 DVDs a week, and although I've had a PS3 for a few months now, I only have 3 BluRay movies- and one of them came with the system. The reason doesn't have anything to do with price (I don't mind paying a bit extra for HD, although I would buy fewer titles overall if I bought more stuff on BluRay- and I would probably be a bit more selective) or DRM (By the time hard drives are big enough that ripping disks is reasonable, the format will be cracked wide open- it's already cracked a little bit). Instead it's the fact that the choices suck. The reason some of these titles are only selling a couple hundred copies is that there are only a couple of hundred people who actually liked the movies they offer. Part of it is the cost, there are certainly movies that are worth it to me at $15, but not at $25- but more than that there seem to be some movies that are innately "I _want_ to see that in HD!" and other movies no so much. The problem is they aren't really selling many of those must see in HD titles. They aren't even selling many of the "If I'm going to buy it anyway, why not get it on BluRay" titles. Instead, they seem to be selling a bunch of "why in the name of $diety would I waste my time or money on that crap" movies, and hoping that people will buy it anyway because they don't have any choices. Of course, they do have a choice, since regular DVDs still work. A great movie is often even more amazing in HD, but a crappy movie in HD is still a crappy movie. If they really want to get the format moving, why in the world can I get Ultraviolet and Dinosaur on BluRay, but not the Lord of the Rings or Godfather trilogies?
Based on what I've seen on the shelf at best buy, HD-DVD offers better movies, but I'm reluctant to fork over the $200 for the 360 HD-DVD add-on for a format that seems to be sinking even worse than BluRay.

Re:The Reason: Choices Suck

[bmgoau]

You're buying $1950 worth of DVD's a year. Try taking the kids to a themepark, going on an overseas holiday or trating the wife to a nice resuraunt.

Ill almost bet that at this rate you've exhausted any movie worth actually watching.

Re:The Reason: Choices Suck

[Anonymous Coward]

Very true. There are a number of titles I would instantly buy on blu-ray if they became available, even though I have extended super duper directors yada yada versions on DVD.

Every time I look at the blu-ray titles available, there's little worth bothering with. A bunch of junk titles one wouldn't even bother downloading for free, or ancient movies that have been doing the rounds on HD TV channels for years.

I also haven't noticed any TV shows on the format. I'd like battlestar for starters. Thankfully the BBC's Planet Earth is just around the corner, and I have that pre-ordered, but there's little else available of note.

Why no Lord of the Rings, Kong, Sin City, $FAVORITE_BLOCKBUSTER_MOVIE?

Re:The Reason: Choices Suck

[miyako]

Actually, one of the reasons that I have many movies is that I have no wife, no kids, and have a good job in a town with nothing to do- except stay home and watch movies. You're right about having exhausted most things worth watching. I've been going at this rate for about 9 months, since I moved to where I'm at now, and lately it's been difficult to find much worth watching. Most of my recent purchases have been BBC and Discovery Channel documentaries (Over the weekend I just picked up and watched Walking with Prehistoric Beasts and a BBC Documentary on Auschwitz (wait? do I lose now? does that count as godwining the thread?)).

Re:The Reason: Choices Suck

[Reservoir Penguin]

Wow, have you tried reading? (books)

HDTVs getting cheaper

[AlpineR]

Just a month ago I agreed that there wouldn't be much demand for HD DVD/Blu-Ray since few people have HDTVs. But I've been noticing more and more television programming being broadcast in high-definition and got interested in two particular types of show: sports and nature documentaries. The series Planet Earth looks particularly cool so I checked into HDTV prices.

I found a nice 32" LCD 720p set for $904, having fallen from around $1200 a few months ago to below the magic $1000 mark. I've always thought that $1000 for a TV is really expensive but then realized that I just spent $2000 on a MacBook Pro in November. Maybe it's not so crazy to spend that much on a nice 32" display with at least the same resolution as my computer.

I was about to buy that set, but then saw a newer 32" LCD 1080p set for $1100. So I'm selling my old Powerbook and 25" conventional TV to buy a cool new HDTV.

I'm missing the airing of Planet Earth in the meantime and I'd like to buy it on disc, but DVDs would miss tons of resolution. So I'll likely be in the market for a high-definition player within a year. HD DVD and Blu-Ray discs might not be selling much yet, but I bet sales will grow tremendously as more affordable sets become popular and one of the discs wins the format war.

AlpineR

Re:HDTVs getting cheaper

[mgabrys_sf]

You can add 5 inches to the screen for 1080p and drop the price to just over 1000 if you go with Westinghouse on Amazon. So far the only ding-review was on Westinghouse service. Not sure who makes the actual glass for the product, but it seems to more than deliver for the price-point. (note this is a monitor - doesn't have a built in tuner)

Re:HDTVs getting cheaper

[bommai]

Even better, I bought a 37" 720p HANNspree HDTV with 3 HDMI inputs ATSC/QAM tuner for $699 free shipping from buy.com 2 weeks ago. For the price, this TV rocks!! At 37" unless you are using it as a computer monitor, 720p is plenty. It accepts 1080i and 1080p signals too and scales it to 1366x768. Looks great.

Re:HDTVs getting cheaper

[hawaiian717]

Doesn't sound bad. I got the 32" version offered by Woot.com recently for $495 shipped, but it only has one HDMI input, and it only has ATSC and NTSC tuners, no QAM. It does have plenty of other inputs... component, composite, S-Video, etc. I'm happy with it, especially since it replaced a 19" mono CRT.

When 300 comes out

[jidar]

When The Matrix came out on DVD it was a big factor to getting people to finally switch formats. Lots of people who didn't previously buy DVDs picked that one up first.

A movie with the potential to do the same would probably be 300. I'll be very interested in seeing if it doesn't kick start this format war into the next level.

Re:When 300 comes out

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

A movie with the potential to do the same would probably be 300.

Don't count on it. The high amount of grain in the film (a stylistic decision by the director) means that it won't benefit as much from the extra resolution of HD over DVD as movies with cleaner prints like Crank do.

Of course 300 has had unprecedented amounts of marketing money spent on it, maybe they will keep up the spending and convince people to buy the HD edition(s) too.

Re:When 300 comes out

[BoberFett]

Yes, I was one of those convinced to dive into DVD when The Matrix was released. I am also one of those who became tired of crappy new technology being released before it's ready when my brand new DVD player refused to play the movie I just bought.

If HD discs are still around and a significant majority of the movies I want to own are in that format in a few years, I may consider buying one. Until then I have better things to spend money on.

I can see the difference easily.

[guidryp]

Unlike DVD-Audio, SACD where I can't actually hear any difference, I can easily see the better quality of high definition video.

As soon as I get a new display I will upgrade to Blu Ray. That doesn't mean I plan on buying movies over again. Though I might consider an update to some favorites like Blade Runner.

Though, I think uptake will be slow based entirely on people who have high resolution displays.

There is a fix

[Groo Wanderer]

This problem is robbing the studio execs of coke and Porsche money, how will they buy their kids a new yacht at this rate of sales? The problem is obviously piracy, so we need to ratchet up the screws on DRM and pass some new laws to make not buying enough discs a crime. 7 a day should be enough for the average person, and off to jail if they don't (1).

                  -Charlie

(1) At full retail, sales don't count.

Re:There is a fix

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

Why would a studio exec buy a Porsche? Porsche's are what software developers buy when they come into a bit of money. Studio execs earn more than just a bit of money.

Re: Similar to Vista

[wolff000]

I couldn't disagree with you more. The new format is meant to replace the old not supplement it. I am 99% sure that if/when hd and blu-ray take off that non high def content will be put on them. It is simply a matter of being efficient. Why waste money buy producing thousands of regular dvds when you can make a single disc and still charge the same price? Right now it is better to keep them on regular dvds but once production cost comes down on the other formats be ready to buy all your tv shows over again.

Netflix

[bjackson1]

I wonder how Netflix fits into all of this. For no extra charge, one can have bluray and HD-DVD versions of movies sent to their home. I've never bought a HD-DVD but I am a rather heavy consumer of them. I have rented 34 titles so far from them. All of my friends that have HD-DVD and BluRay players do the same thing. The cost of the movie is prohibitive, but Netflix charges no more for the privilege.

Re:Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with you. I have never ever bought a DVD and will never buy a BD. I use Netflix. I find no need to buy a movie that I only need to watch once. In addition, I don't receive DVD's from Netflix anymore, I only get BD's. HD content is a godsend. I compare HD content to going from dial-up to broadband, once you make the change you will never go back and wonder how you lived without it.
Probably the BD's I will buy are the Discovery Series Planet Earth. Those camera men deserve all the money they can get for recording such amazing pictures of Earth for future generations. It is truely spectacular.

Re: Similar to Vista

[Shemmie]

I think (and hope) future movie discs will have even more commentary tracks, and extras.
I may well be in the minority here - but when I buy a DVD, 99 times out of 100, I have no interest in the extras and commentary. I buy it to watch the movie. That 1 time out of 100, I'll buy the collectors edition.

What _average_ viewers are really like

[dpbsmith]

Of the people I know who have recently bought big-screen flat-panel sets: one of them invited us to watch a movie with them. They didn't perform any deliberate setup steps. They popped the DVD in and played it. It happened to be a 4:3 "full screen" DVD, and their settings, whatever they were, simply stretched it to fill a 16:9 screen. They seemed unaware of any issues with this. After about five minutes I was going bonkers and finally got up the courage to ask them whether they could change the setting. They pushed a few buttons on their remote, got a few all-black screens and error messages, and finally put it back the way it was and told me to stop being so picky. (I settled for moving my chair way to the side...)

Another couple I know recently bought what called a "high definition" set. They were proud of having gotten a good deal on it. They mostly used it to watch DVDs and standard-definition broadcasts. They thought the picture was great. When they weren't around, I, curious to see whether HDTV was really the mind-blowing experience it was supposed to be, tuned the set to the local NPR affiliate. The picture looked good but not all that great... not the sort of 35mm cinema experience I was expecting. On closer inspection I saw that something on the set's faceplate said something like "Enhanced Definition" or "Enhanced Digital" or something like that. I sneaked out their instruction booklet and leafed through it. It wasn't a high-definition set at all. It was a regular set with some kind of electronic sharpening effect. They didn't know and didn't care. I didn't tell them.

I don't think the average consumer understands high definition or cares about it. They buy a set, the picture looks "good" because of technology improvements--the perfect geometry, high brightness, and high contrast of solid state screens compared to picture tubes... and because it's digital, and their cable company's analog signals were crap.

They will probably buy HD DVD or Blu-Ray players someday, but they'll hardly know that they are buying them. They'll buy them when high definition essentially comes for free: when the nice-looking name-brand high-quality $129.95 players just happens to include high definition, and the only ones that don't are $39.95 el-cheapo deluxe models. They'll probably refer to them as "DVD players." And as long as they pop a disk in it and it plays, they probably won't even notice whether it's high or low definition... any more than my friends noticed whether the DVD they rented was 4:3 or 16:9.

Re:What _average_ viewers are really like

[Sax Maniac]

At least put their DVD player into 16:9 when they're in the bathroom. Then it will look right for widescreen DVDs.

I stopped by Blockbuster the other day for the first time in years (a few kids will do that to you). Asked for a movie, and did my usual "is it widescreen" because some are not marked, and I hate chopped-up movies even on my old 3:2 TV. A few years ago the answer would have been "we only have fullscreen, customers keep accidentally renting the widescreen and complaining".

But this time I got "when there's a choice, we only stock widescreen now. Corporate says it's "truer to the director's vision". I was shocked because they are doing the right thing. My guess is that people with snazzy new sets complained about fullframe on their 16:9 (be it pillarboxed or stretched) and complained. After all, they have more money!

Well, I don't give a crap about the director's vision (read: George Lucas) but I surely want to see ALL of the movie. Actually, I have confidence that this will aspect ratio crap will fix itself in a few years as we phase out 3:2, broadcasters get smarter, and and better auto-detection electronics is built in. It's insane watching HDTV now- cut to commercial filmed in 16:9 and it's freaking pillarboxed AND letterboxed! What are the broadcasters smoking?

But yeah, most people can't tell the difference between a clean 480p and HD. Sad, isn't it?

We geeks have to improve the technology so it works better with no configuring. For the folks who don't like pillarboxing because they think something's missing (duh, but that's how people think), the solution is the fill the empty spots with something. Many ideas come to mind. How about two 3:2 PIPs on one side? An extra tuner to full it, snapshot frames into it randomly, or a button to explicitly do it. Put the subtitles/captions there instead of over the content. How about a nonintrustive TV or visual chapter guide? During a sportscast, I also saw a nice effect where they simply repeated the same content in the extra areas, but faded/blurred out, to make a nice algorithmic background. Or put some graphics there. There's just so much that can be done.

Re:What _average_ viewers are really like

[Black Perl]

I stopped by Blockbuster the other day for the first time in years (a few kids will do that to you). Asked for a movie, and did my usual "is it widescreen" because some are not marked, and I hate chopped-up movies even on my old 3:2 TV. A few years ago the answer would have been "we only have fullscreen, customers keep accidentally renting the widescreen and complaining".


However, the number of widescreen movies on DVD in 2.35:1 is increasing, meaning you get a letterboxed movie on 16:9 screens. And I've seen a few that are "formatted to fit your TV" in which they've done pan edits to bring a 2.35:1 movie down to 16:9.

But this time I got "when there's a choice, we only stock widescreen now. Corporate says it's "truer to the director's vision".

I wonder how this is going to play out when the "director's vision" generally becomes 2.35:1. If I were to build a home theater now, I'd seriously consider making the screen 2.35:1, as seen in the home theaters featured here.

Re:What _average_ viewers are really like

[Spackler]

Ok, soapbox time.

Please read that comment but replace anything to do with TV with the word Linux.

Now understand that the sheeple of the world are not geeks or pretentious A-holes like you.

Ok, I am off my soapbox.

It was really not flamebait or anything except for the fact that he summed up what is wrong when geeks associate with regular people and can't understand that real folks would not know compiling a kernel from trajectories of meteors.

Re:What _average_ viewers are really like

[Anonymous Coward]

"Enhanced Definition" means 480p (720x480, progressive-scan). It isn't HD, true, but neither is it a "sharpening effect" -- it's still higher resolution than most TVs.

Re:What _average_ viewers are really like

[Anonymous Coward]

"...tuned the set to the local NPR affiliate. The picture looked good but not all that great..."

So National Public Radio isn't in HDTV yet? The picture for that radio braodcast must have been terrible.

Re:Some Blu-Ray, HD DVD titles selling like crazy.

[SuiteSisterMary]

Nonsense. It's called room for expansion.

When I had a nasty SD 4:3 television, I still made a point of buying anamorphic DVDs, and I still enjoyed my Xbox.

Then, when I got a widescreen HDTV, I needed only tell my DVD player that I now had such a TV, and tell my Xbox the same thing, and boom; done.

So, yeah. People with 720P sets will get a benefit out of HD-DVD/BluRay. And, at some point, if they upgrade their displays, boom.

how to buy stocks according to slashdot

[mgabrys_sf]

Bet against everything the slashdotters like.

The iPod will fail! The PS3 will never sell! Blu-Ray will be trounced by HDDVD! Snakes on a Plane - Boffo!

The only exception at this point is the Zune - but that's got more failure-mass than a white-dwarf. So I'm not sure it counts.

Can't wait for the iPhone to join the hit-list. I'm buying one because it's pretty much negative comments here. Solid gold endorsement if I ever heard one.

Got any least-favorite lottery numbers?

Re:Casino Royale Blueray sales a promotional trick

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you should collect a few more and build:

http://stupidco.com/aol_throne_intro.html

Aack!!! No......

[Gr8Apes]

I'd rather they drop most of the useless extras and concentrate on producing higher quality video with less compression.

As for shuffling of DVDs, this is a problem for you? You will actually sit and watch TV for more than 4 hours? (The roughly maximum time for a single DVD with acceptable quality) I don't know about you, but I generally need a pee break in a 3 hour period. Video isn't like music where you shuffle songs, since generally the running time is much longer than most songs.

While I think I'd like a higher quality picture, some HD TV shows have convinced me that perhaps I don't want to see every freckle and pock mark or glistening bit of goo...

Re: Similar to Vista

[kimvette]

While you are at it, ban the group commentaries -- those truly suck. If someone has something to say, use all that space to put it on a separate track, or at least manage it like the excellent Bond Double Oh 7 editions do.

This is not a blanket rule; listen to the Futurama commentaries, for example.

Re: Similar to Vista

[mr_matticus]

Why would anyone buy their TV shows again? Just keep a flipping DVD player around and watch them on that. It's not as though the magic of HD is going to do anything for the majority of TV shows on DVD.

To consumers, not more laden

[SuperKendall]

on the other hand, it is laden with DRM that the previous thing wasn't.

To a consumer this does not appear to be the case:

1) Blu-Ray and HD-DVD discs are not region limited for at least the first few years; Thus the format is more appealing.

2) Can you record output onto a VCR? No, but you could not do that with DVD anyway.

3) Physically there is little apparant difference

4) Most people do not back up or rip DVD's today, so that being harder with the new format is a non-issue.

To the average consumer, the new format is slightly better because thye can play import discs. All other aspects are a wash.

Re:To consumers, not more laden

[geko29]

Actually only HD DVD is region free. Blu-Ray still has region coding, although it differs from DVD's. BR has 3 regions--The Western Hemisphere and Pacific Rim; Europe, Africa, the Middle East and Australia; and Asia. and Now regions could still theoretically be added to HD DVD, but the DVD Forum has pledged not to do that until at least 2009. They have recently considered backpedaling on that promise, but nothing has been determined yet.

Re:To consumers, not more laden

[SuperKendall]

AFIAK Blu-Ray has regions defined, but in practice studios have been told not to include that in new discs for several years. I am not 100% sure about that - Amazon is of little help to verify, as they still seem to be talking about DVD regions. I was told that about the regions by someone else had had researched Blu-Ray for a while, I could be wrong to have accepted that statement...

no compelling reason to move.

[Churla]

I recently picked up an HDTV set finally. (Got a sweet deal on a nice Mitsubishi 62" DLP setup)

I still don't have a reason to want to bump up to and HD format. Most of the content I like and watch regularly is still only coming out on DVD's, combine that with a DVR to grab over the air stuff (including HD), and HD content through a Windows Media Center setup and I just don't see the reason to buy one or the other until there's no longer a worry about who will win.

If you really want to see the stop gap du jour I'm picking up, it's a nice upscaling 1080p DVD player. http://www.oppodigital.com/proddetail.asp?prod=DV9 81HD If you poke around a little you can even find an easily accessible code to make that puppy region free.

Yeah, some travelogs sell under 200

[objekt]

I couldn't recognize a single one of the movies released in 2006 that have sold less than 200 copies.

Re: Similar to Vista

[rainman_bc]

when I buy a DVD, 99 times out of 100, I have no interest in the extras and commentary.

Yeah but then you'd miss some really funny things like the waxing scene from 40 Year Old Virgin... The outtakes on that scene were worth the expense of buying the DVD from the Previously Viewed section at my video store...

Re:Some Blu-Ray, HD DVD titles selling like crazy.

[drinkypoo]

Let us not forget this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray#Java_software _support

Why I'm not buying

[My name is Bucket]

1: Lack of theater-worthy releases. So far I've bought The Departed, Stargate, Total Recall and Casino Royale. I'll get Terminator 2 soon. But for the life of me, I can't find a reason to buy Click or Along Came Polly on Blu-Ray. I didn't get HD to watch people share their feelings; I want to see explosions and lasers, goddamnit! 2: Concept of storage space is lost. TV producers have yet to realize that for some shows, HD really isn't necessary. Here is where you introduce the "one-disc box set": it reduces your cost while people will accept a good amount of markup for the luxury of an entire season of episodes on one disc. 3: Not actually HD. Ooh, I can see genuine film grain! I can hear pops and hiss with stunning clarity! Nice job remastering your old movies for the new millenium, assholes. It's good to know I'm getting that commitment to quality for my extra $15.

Re: Similar to Vista

[contrapunctus]

I just don't want to sit through the DVD title sequence and previews.
I just want to put the disk in and watch the movie (not juggle though disabled buttons until I find the one that skips the previews and find that nothing will skip the crappy menu sequence (and the don't steal video)).

I stopped buying DVDs for this reason. It's mine: I don't want to go through the same shit every time I put it in.

Re: Similar to Vista

[Gulthek]

And Kevin Smith movies. Mallrats + commentary is a really funny movie.

Re: Similar to Vista

[Kabuthunk]

Not to mention that they're supposed to be backward-compatable for DVD's anyway. I'll just... y'know... keep my DVD's regardless, and watch everything in the same player.

And then there's the players that play both Blu-ray and HD-DVD (and assumingly DVD, but I haven't checked). Just get one player to fit all your needs.

How about some incentive to buy HD-DVD or BluRay?

[Control-Z]

Ok, so I've got a spiffy 42" plasma and can watch beautiful HDTV shows over the air for free, better than DVD quality. I can also watch widescreen DVDs that for the most part look really good and cost around $10-$15.

So where's my incentive to buy a HD or BluRay player when the movies are $26 or more? Sure the picture will be (better be) beautiful, but I'm not paying over $20 for a movie.

Come back when prices lower.

Re:Some Blu-Ray, HD DVD titles selling like crazy.

[Bob-taro]

it means they're upscaling from 720 to 768, which is pitiful.

Is that based on personal experience? There are some very good scaling/deinterlacing systems out there. If you have the right hardware (or software), upscaling from 720 to 768 (or even downscaling from 1080 to 768) will look just fine. If you have bad scaling, upscaling by a factor of 2 or 3 will look "chunky", just like SDTV looks very bad on some HDTVs, while on others it only looks "blurry".

The Fifth Element is used to gauge new formats

[Anonymous Coward]

The fifth element looks really good on increasingly good resolutions. It's famous among videophiles for its ability to set higher resolution media apart.

So you're wrong to say there is no compelling reason to buy fifth element for blu-ray. It'd be my first disc. And you should buy it for whatever replaces blu-ray too.

My Blu-Ray experience

[Anonymous Coward]

I have about a dozen blu-ray titles. Of the titles I own, the difference between the classic movies (Blazing Saddles, Stargate) seems to be hardly noticeable (audio quality and channeling being the only difference). The newer titles I own, such as The Departed, are significantly better quality video and audio than their DVD counterparts.

Originally I thought blu-ray was great, as I have an BenQ W10000 1080p projector on a 126" screen with an Onkyo S790 7.1 surround HTiB and you do notice the lack of pixel density at that size, however the lack of titles has been my biggest problem. If for example they released David Lynch's Dune, The Usual Suspects, or the original Star Wars trilogy (yeah George Lucas needs more cash :), I guarentee they would see high returns. The problem is the selection of movies that were transferred to blu-ray. Really Blazing Saddles isn't a movie I expect to gain much astethic value from in high definition video or audio (I originally purchased it to replace a missing DVD release, but have since done the Pepsi challenge against the DVD) but an HD remastered version of the Holy Triology or Stargate would be deserving. Further I believe most of the remastered titles are done from laserdisc and only slightly better than DVD.

I think another problem rests in the quality of medium the original movie was shot on and the work it would take to remaster it. Well and a bit off topic, but the fact that most recent movies are crap.

So the question I pose to Sony in licensing of blu-ray titles is:

1. What movies would consumers actually get a return on investment, what have you, from the HD release?

2. How much work would need to go into _properly_ remastering old titles and releasing them? (I'd pay a premium for Starwars, say 100USD or so, as I did for my laserdisc set)

3. Why not lower the cost of new movies (post 2005 for example) to entice a market shift away from DVD and towards blu-ray?

We need an "UNAMORPHIC" mode

[whyde]

Let it be said here first: All set-top boxes should be required to have an "UNAMORPHIC" setting that permits the anamorphic video to be sent directly to the 4:3-only video output ports, including COMPOSITE and S-Video. This would allow higher-quality recordings to be made (and viewed) on sets which are forced to use those ports, like PVR software and video capture cards.

For example, using a Hauppauge PVR250 capture card, it connects to a STB (cable, satellite) via S-Video and uses an IR Blaster to change channels. Hi-def channels are automatically "letterboxed" by the STB before going down S-Video, which throws away 25% of the possible video information that will never be seen by the PVR250 for recording. Braindead.

If the STB would just send anamorphic video down the COMPOSITE or S-Video outputs, the capture card would get the info at full-resolution and I can force the proper aspect when converting or during playback later.

This would also have the side-effect of improving the world of people who are too dumb to understand how to hook up their fancy new TVs, since they would then be "stretching" the anamorphic video and it would wind up being displayed CORRECTLY on their 16:9 set.

There can't possibly already be legislation against such a technology. Yet.

Re:We need an "UNAMORPHIC" mode

[Anonymous Coward]

You should just be able to set the box to output to 16:9 which is meant for sending the output to regular widescreen TVs which use those inputs, if you can't that is the fault of whoever made the box.

NetFlix

[Nurf]

I'm not sure how much it affects things, but part of the reason I got a PS3 is that my girlfriend has a NetFlix subscription, and they will ship you the Blu-Ray version of a movie for no extra charge. If the special features on the Blu-Ray are as good as, or better than, those on the DVD (not a good assumption, we have to check each disk on Amazon), we get the Blu-Ray version.

I'm probably not going to buy any discs until I can buy them second hand. Until then, NetFlix is my friend.

I buy maybe 2 new DVDs a year. My girlfriend buys many times more than that, but she buys second-hand DVDs usually. Neither of us likes paying more than $10 for a 90 minute show.

I just pre-ordered the Planet Earth HD nature series for around $70, but that's a bit of an anomaly, as I get four disks with 11 episodes on them.

Just because I can afford a 42" screen and a PS3 doesn't mean I want to blow $35 on a single movie. :-P My girlfriend loves special features and the other bric a brac found on DVDs and Blu-Ray's poor initial offerings in that department meant they had no interest for her.

Given all of the above, I'm not all that surprised by Blu-Ray sales figures. I do wish I could see NetFlix's distribution figures for Blu-Rays though. That would be a very informative set of numbers, I think, as there is no price difference between DVD and Blu-Ray there.

Re:Some Blu-Ray, HD DVD titles selling like crazy.

[king-manic]

HD/BD both allow the option to use component or DVI. At least my PS3 does. DVI allows 1080p. Oddly component only allows 1080i on the PS3 on my 50ind sony rear projection LCD. And the difference on my rig between IP digital TV and DVD is noticable and DVD to BD immense. Your underplayings the actual difference. Not only higher resolutions and more pixels but also higher bit rates audio and almost no compression artifacts like DVD. They are noticable on most action films on DVD. There is also java menuing options, better scratch resistance, and better audio. On older TV's or even just bad TV's there is little difference between DVD, VHS BD, rabbit ears. But on better sets even in SD a noticable difference is there. The next step will be evolutionary not revolutionary. DVD was a big step because so much can be improved. BD/HD is less so because there are fewer obvious things to improve. The next step will be online content once bandwidth comes up to speed. Thats the last added convienance but with broadband penetration being so pathetically low in the US (as compared to other western nations) this step might take a while. Most people didn't care how exactly DVD's were better back in the day, they just bought the DVD because it was just "better". The same thing will happen to BD/HD. Although it looks like it's going to be BD at this point.

Re:Some Blu-Ray, HD DVD titles selling like crazy.

[king-manic]

HDCP isn't mandatory. I get 1080i with my component/Ps3 set up. I can get 1080p with DVI connectors. OR so I'm told.

Perhaps they need to school the stores

[Maltheus]

Whenever I see BlueRay or HD-DVD in the stores, I've been very unimpressed. It looks almost worse than DVD in some ways. Now, I know that's not technically true, but I also know that electronics stores know nothing about calibrating their TVs so that everything looks like junk. For instance, sharpness should be at or near 0, it's artificial noise.

HD/BD aside, half the time, you don't even know it the source is HD or not. At one big electronics store, a salesman told me that the signal came off a central hard drive and it was heavily recompressed. WTF? HD TVs should be showing nothing but a high quality HD feed.

So my advice to the Sountrack/Ultimate, Best Buy and Circuit City, get the best signal you can and spend some time calibrating your sets so that when I walk by, I can by wowed and say that looks better than my crappy 8 year old HDTV. Maybe then I'd upgrade my TV or get a Blueray player. Just telling me it's great isn't enough. Hire someone who can actually afford the TV to set it up for you. I'm not going to spend several thousand dollars for a product on the advice of someone who can barely afford beer and gas.

Re:Perhaps they need to school the stores

[gdrumm0356]

Well, Circuit City can't! A previous post in /. pointed to the story about CC laying off their top 1000+ employees-the ones who knew what technology was, and how to sell it. No relation to anything to do with CC :-)

Re: Similar to Vista

[greed]

Yup, my cheap Blu-Ray player (or expensive PS2 and PSone game machine) plays conventional (and burned) DVDs just fine. It actually is slightly nicer to use than my dedicated DVD player; so I watch movies in the PS3 and leave TV-on-DVD in the DVD machine so "resume play" works. (It doesn't remember last-play position after eject. Hmmm, I think the PS3 does, maybe the dedicated DVD player is completely useless now.)

Give me something good to watch

[Frobozz0]

The success of movies like Casino Royale makes sense in the same way the sales of the original Matrix movie made sense when DVD was in its infancy. Right now, a lot of hi-definition discs are very thin on extra features, mimic the abilities of DVD even when they have far better to offer, and frankly they put out a lot of shit movies.

The reason why some movies sell 200 copies is because even on DVD they'd sell at the bottom of the barrel. Movie studios figured if they offer the never ending parade of movie tripe that didn't sell on DVD into hi-definition formats, they might get a few quick sales in an otherwise vacuum of quality.

I have bought a couple Blu-rays now for my PS3. But what I am truly waiting for are the big ones: sci-fi epics like Indiana Jones, Star Wars, the Matix, Lord of the Rings, and other re-digitized classics.

Re:Casino Royale Blueray sales a promotional trick

[Anonymous Coward]

They get to use the PS3 bundles because you get the PS3 when you buy the movie for $600!!

Re: Similar to Vista

[mattcoz]

Older TV series that are only in standard definition might be able to do that, but you would still have trouble fitting an entire season on a single disc. Those 7 discs of Lost would be more than 50GB. With new shows though, most are in high definition, so you're back to having many discs.

Is it a compelling upgrade?

[spaceyhackerlady]

At lunch time today I wandered by one of the local high-tech places and observed a 5:1 price difference between Blu-Ray and the fanciest plain old DVD players. Add in the cost of an HD-ready TV and that's a pretty stiff upgrade cost.

The question then is: is this an upgrade that solves an old problem, or an upgrade that provides a new experience? Or is it just another forced upgrade for the sake of novelty?

DVD had a hefty premium at first. It didn't take off until the prices came down, and it only really took off when manufacturers stopped making VCRs. I suspect HD-DVD/Blu-Ray will play out much the same. I'd love to see a massive consumer boycott over the draconian DRM that comes with the new formats, but I doubt it will happen.

...laura, who cheerfully plays DVDs on her Linux box

Re:Is it a compelling upgrade?

[Anonymous Coward]

A $10 premium is too much for "resolution". Blu-Ray should be the same over-price as DVD.

Re:Some Blu-Ray, HD DVD titles selling like crazy.

[mr_matticus]

The whole point is that an incremental improvement is harder to sell than a dramatic one. Java menus, scratch resistance, and higher audio bitrates just don't give anyone that tingly feeling. Lots of audiophiles have spent thousands of dollars on sound systems just to get the most out of AC-3 as it is--the number of audiophiles who complain about Dolby/DTS tracks is small (again, except for poor mastering, which HD/BD does not and cannot solve), and everyone else certainly doesn't care. Higher resolution doesn't give you anything on small sets or SDTV displays, and the lack of compression artifacts again doesn't counter the bad transfers and some of the other problems with effects shots (think about the modern equivalents of black lines and the TIE fighter "blue box" effect).

Not one of my 300+ DVDs is scratched to the point of having any effect on playback, and most have no scratches whatsoever. I'm glad that they're developing better coatings, but it's not a special feature of HD/BD discs that was suddenly innovated.

If you really think that there's no difference between rabbit ears, VHS, and DVD on a traditional TV set, you're either too young to remember, being deceptive, or just have poor judgment. Unless you're talking about TVs from the 70s that are still magically in service, that's simply not true. I have a projection TV from 1992 that you can clearly see the difference in all formats to this day; older sets will have this distinction too, but that's the oldest I own.

HD/BD is an incremental improvement, and it should be selling far faster, since the target market is a "spendy" one and not the entire US customer base, and DVD already broke the precedent for repurchasing. Things are not going too well.

Re:Some Blu-Ray, HD DVD titles selling like crazy.

[Anonymous Coward]

i call bullshit on this one. 1996 was the first year dvd's were even sold, and target sure as hell didn't have any for $10.

Re:Casino Royale Blueray sales a promotional trick

[danomac]

I've never owned 15+ copies of any other CD at once. Not that I was TRYING to own 15+ copies of the AOL CD; it just somehow happened. Between mass mailing, and copies included with every computer publication my mom brought home in the 90's, they just sort of accumulated.

Anyone remember when they sent 3.5" floppy disks? At least if they sent you a dozen in the mail you could format them and not have to buy media. Maybe someone should persuade them to start using CD-RWs...

Re: Similar to Vista

[miskatonic alumnus]

The group commentary on Re-Animator with Jeffrey Combs, and co. is pretty funny.

Re:Casino Royale Blueray sales a promotional trick

[mink]

There is a promo of some kind going on here in the US involving Casino Royal. I remeber seeing it but didn't pay much attention to it.

Re: Similar to Vista

[wolff000]

Very true but I know plenty of people that will go out and get the latest and greatest despite having the same thing sitting at home. As consumers we love to consume and we do so whether it makes sense or not.