August 9, 2010 - Flatland

[bagheadinc]

Yes, any change would require a shift in the cameras used to actually film the action

This is already happening. Many movies are being shot on digital now, pretty much any professional digital camera can shoot at variable speeds. Film is a dying medium, especially with the 4K RED ONE camera and the upcoming 28K RED EPIC. And the whole 3D movie fad is just a push for theaters to switch to digital projectors.

those kinds of effects can be made for high FPS.

Another reason film companies are reluctant to move to 30fps is that shaving off 6 frames per second actually saves quite a bit of time and money in post work (especially digital effects).

[Judd Sandage]

Actually, "S-Video" as it were is dead....most DVD players are Upscale DVD players now which ARE capable of playing 1080p HD video. Most connections are Composite or HDMI now.....so I fail to see where your S-Video reference is even relevant. And older DVD's released don't HAVE advertisements telling you to buy Blu-Rays. There are new DVD standards on the newer DVD's.

Don't forget about Component Video connections, and as far as ALL DVD Players, even the upscaling ones, none can play anything above the industry standard 480i/p NTSC or 576i/p PAL resolutions on a DVD, yes some can upscale that to "Full HD" or 1080p, but that is not the same as natively being able to take and playback a 1080p rez video, and even then only on HDMI as its locked to that digital connection even though Component is capable of doing 1080p and you can do so on most Blu-Ray players of you try and play back DVDs and have them upscaled you will need to have HDMI to do so, its stupid the one where you would WANT to lock down analog isen't and the one where it shouldn't matter does... their crazy these romans.... er I mean Hollywood executives.

Anywho, I would recommend a standalone Blu-Ray with profile 2.0 only because you don't have to deal with the BS of Sony, I have a PS3 and am annoyed at the way they deal with some things, like 480p content on a blu-ray disc, it only plays at 480p screwing up my TV (I need a new one as it sometimes just goes blank or static when its forced to change resolutions) my admittedly crappy Memorex ($150 Woot Special) deals with that just fine. and besides they have gotten so cheap now a days, 130 bones for a good one with network functionality and they ability to deal with netflix as well... the prices have gotten to dvd player levels quickly.

[StruckingFuggle]

the prices have gotten to dvd player levels quickly.

So now how long until media prices follow suit?

[bagheadinc]

I have a PS3 and am annoyed at the way they deal with some things, like 480p content on a blu-ray disc, it only plays at 480p

You can disable resolutions in your video settings on the PS3. So if you disable all resolutions other than 1080p it will force everything to play in 1080p.

So now how long until media prices follow suit?

They already have. Usually there is only a slight difference in price between DVD and Blu-ray. Usually when there's a big price jump is when it's the Blu-ray/DVD/Digital combo packs.

[StruckingFuggle]

Oh. Okay... that slipped by me because I still don't see Blu Ray as worth the investment, so I haven't be following it so closely. Cool.

[collegestudent22]

So now how long until media prices follow suit?

They already have. Usually there is only a slight difference in price between DVD and Blu-ray. Usually when there's a big price jump is when it's the Blu-ray/DVD/Digital combo packs.

From Amazon, the price of 300 on Blu-ray is $24.98 $15.49. The DVD is $14.98 $8.99. That's a rather big difference, and it can grow when you have things like TV seasons and mini-series that require multiple discs.

Given that the production process for a Blu-ray does not differ all that much from the DVD (and the difference in visual quality is not nearly as wide - and other advantages - as that from VHS to DVD) the higher price is just too much for many people, like myself, to justify.

[raptor9k]

Whereas the Blu-Ray for Mr. and Mrs. Smith is currently $2 cheaper than either of the DVD editions. It's all about watching the sales.

[bagheadinc]

From Amazon, the price of 300 on Blu-ray is $24.98 $15.49. The DVD is $14.98 $8.99. That's a rather big difference, and it can grow when you have things like TV seasons and mini-series that require multiple discs.

Well, you were looking at the price for the single DVD edition. The Blu-ray version contains all the features (and a few more) that the 2-disc DVD edition has, which costs $11.99. So it's only a $3.50 price difference. And as raptor said, some Blu-rays are the same price and on occasion cheaper than the DVD.

Given that the production process for a Blu-ray does not differ all that much from the DVD

The production process is pretty much the same, but the disc itself is more expensive per unit.

and the difference in visual quality is not nearly as wide

Yes, occasionally a movie transferred to Blu-ray is done poorly or the original source material was already poor and you end up with something not much different from DVD, but for most you can see a large difference. Also the sound quality tends to be better on Blu-ray. Also due to Blu-ray's larger storage capacity, they can hold more special features.

the higher price is just too much for many people, like myself, to justify.

If you can't afford it, then don't buy it. If you can, I think it's more than worth the price difference.

[collegestudent22]

Given that the production process for a Blu-ray does not differ all that much from the DVD

The production process is pretty much the same, but the disc itself is more expensive per unit.

The disc is nearly identical to the DVD - the only difference is the data layer. The price difference shouldn't be as wide as it is, and a drop to closer to the price of a DVD (and making Blu-ray and DVD movies the same price) makes far more sense from a "getting people to convert" approach. If Blu-ray were the same price as DVD, then I think DVD would be obsolete in a short time. However, it isn't, and Blu-ray movies and discs refuse to follow the same drop as the hardware - resulting in a lingering format that clearly is inferior.

Most of the increased production cost is in the hardware, yet the discs cost so much more that it is hurtful to adopt. A 50 pack DVD spindle is (according to Amazon) around $16 - a 100 pack is only about $20. You can get a 20 pack BD-R spindle for $28. (Both from Verbatim) That is a VERY wide difference. $.05 - $.32/DVD and $1.40/BD.

and the difference in visual quality is not nearly as wide

Yes, occasionally a movie transferred to Blu-ray is done poorly or the original source material was already poor and you end up with something not much different from DVD, but for most you can see a large difference. Also the sound quality tends to be better on Blu-ray. Also due to Blu-ray's larger storage capacity, they can hold more special features.

All I'm saying is that the difference between VHS and DVD was a HUGE jump in quality. Not so much for DVD v. BD - the quality is improved, but due to the already good quality of the DVD, it just doesn't seem as worth it. And some people can't notice the difference in sound quality (poor hearing or just not as fine-tuned) and don't care so much for most of the features put on a disc.

[bagheadinc]

The disc is nearly identical to the DVD - the only difference is the data layer.

This doesn't change the fact that Blu-ray discs cost more to replicate. The medium is more expensive than DVD. Just because they're are both optical discs doesn't mean they are the same. Blu-ray's even have an extra protective coating since their data layer is closer to the surface an more vulnerable to scratches.

A 50 pack DVD spindle is (according to Amazon) around $16 - a 100 pack is only about $20. You can get a 20 pack BD-R spindle for $28. (Both from Verbatim) That is a VERY wide difference. $.05 - $.32/DVD and $1.40/BD.

I don't understand your point. Are you saying that BD-Rs should cost the same as DVD-Rs? Also BD-R, DVD-R, and CD-R are not the same thing as a replicated optical disc. Duplication and replication are two completely different processes.

All I'm saying is that the difference between VHS and DVD was a HUGE jump in quality. Not so much for DVD v. BD - the quality is improved, but due to the already good quality of the DVD, it just doesn't seem as worth it.

Then you need to get your eyes checked. DVD to BD is a huge jump in quality. You said it yourself, DVD "clearly is inferior".

And some people can't notice the difference in sound quality (poor hearing or just not as fine-tuned) and don't care so much for most of the features put on a disc.

You could make this argument for VHS and DVD for people with poor eyesight.

Once again, if you can't justify the price difference (which really isn't all that much) then don't get it. However, just because you don't want to buy it doesn't change the fact that Blu-ray is vastly superior to DVD in every way.

[BtEO]

I also imagine, putting aside the physical cost of the media, that you will need to pay additional people to create the menus, encode the HD streams, etc… separately for the Blu-Ray release, also the hardware they use. These are one time costs per release, but they still have to be covered separate to the costs for such services on the DVD.

[Deacon]

I lol'ed yesterday when I put in a Blu-ray disc and saw it had a whole thing with some bullshit software/site sign-up to rate movies and such, including to share your thoughts on Twitter. Apparently whoever makes these discs and decides these things is pretty stupid. Can you imagine an early Blu-ray with MySpace on it? Or...I don't know, an ICQ number? Maybe an IRC channel? A BBS? The ridiculousness, short-sightedness, and out-of-touch-edness of these people is hilariously stupid. And apparently they lack any class.

[collegestudent22]

I also imagine, putting aside the physical cost of the media, that you will need to pay additional people to create the menus, encode the HD streams, etc… separately for the Blu-Ray release, also the hardware they use. These are one time costs per release, but they still have to be covered separate to the costs for such services on the DVD.

Compared to the price of making the movie, that really isn't that much. I'm fairly certain that they could take that loss for most movies, drop the price, and eventually not need to make DVD copies at all.

[TomXP411]

Composite? I think you mean Component.

Do you actually have a reference for this, Chip? I don't mean to be rude, but if you don't know the difference between component and composite video, how can you claim to know that the DVD format has changed, when I can still view new DVD's on my 8 year old Panasonic DVD changer?

You CAN encode Blu-Ray content to a DVD-ROM, but that's H.264 video, and it's a completely different animal than DVD video, which can only be MPEG-2.

If you'll suggest a DVD title that actually has one of these"high definition" Blu-Ray ads. I'll take the VOB apart and see if it's really something better than D1 resolution. I'm curious myself, and I'd like to know what it is.

[bagheadinc]

Chip was wrong. DVD is still MPEG-2 and cannot playback HD video. Most newer players can upscale to 1080p, but that's far different than playing actual 1080p footage. And like you said, a DVD disc can hold Blu-ray content, but it would only be able to be played on a Blu-ray player.