How long will Blu-ray be around for?

Sad Professor

Sad Professor wrote: »

I think the prices have come down enormously. I mean, HMV have a been doing a 2 for €22 deal for ages now. And you can get them even cheaper from Amazon. It took a lot longer for DVDs to get down to that price.

Play isn't the best place to be buying Blu-rays anyway. They force you to buy in Euro which means an extra €2+ because of their dodgy conversion rate.

They hav loads of Blu's for under a tenner, theres currently a sale on with loads of titles for 7 euro. Their instore price for The Thin Red Line was the cheapest anywhere, 5 and 6 euro less than elsewhere.

jaykhunter

Well blu-rays will come down in price as it becomes the standard. The standard is still DVD; much like DVDs had to get cheaper; when VHS was still the standard

Sad Professor

I only made the jump to Blu-ray about 6 months ago. But with the exception of box sets, I don't think I've paid more than €10-12 for any of the Blu-rays that I have. That to me is pretty cheap already. When I was buying DVDs I was regularly paying €20+. Of course, the studios are throwing out a lot of single disc Blu-rays to keep the price down. DVDs are basically dirt cheap now as they cost next to nothing to produce.

johnny_ultimate

TBH the only films I'm really fussed about getting on Blu-Ray are animation (anime was made for Blu), the occasional blockbuster (Star Trek or Inception) and older films with crappy DVD transfers. For curiosity buys I'd only tend to go with it if it's solidly priced. But since I tend to only pick up world films these days, the Blu-Ray market can be limited at best, and until there's a healthier selection of films available it'll probably be predominantly DVD for at least another year. Luckily, it seems to be changing - even smaller distribution companies like Manga and Third Window (the latter being my favourite film distributor of the moment) are putting out their new releases in HD

Mellor

Voodu Child wrote: »

If you have a 100" wall then potentially you have the space for a 100" TV. It feels like I am repeating myself, but again, you are assuming a future display would have the same form factor as a current one.

Who said im going to scale them down? I would watch them as large as possible, personally I love the idea of an immersive cinema-type experience at home. I said one could scale it down if one wished.

You are repeating yourself, but its still nothing got to do with my point.

It's not an issue of having 100" of free space, that bit isn't hard. Be bigger the TV the further away you have to sit otherwise you can't see all of the screen at once. That's obvious.

I think we'd all love it too if I could have a dedicated home cinema as you see on cribs. But 100" is over 8 foot, so you'll need to be about 20" away to view it properly. Normal rooms just aren't big enough. So your "ah stick it on the wall, it'd would be immense" idea wouldn't work. DUCY?

A comment like that says more about you than me. I am discussing the future of movies and Bluray because I enjoy it, not to be 'right' on the internet. If that is your mindset when coming into every discussion then I feel sorry for you

I was pointing out something I felt you overlooked. That's all. Pretty standard.

Zombrex

Voodu Child wrote: »

You are thinking of it from the perspective of a 2011 TV. A big box with a thick black bezel that dominates the room. Yeah, for sure a 100" version of that is too big for most people.

But the TV of the future will be nothing like that. Every surface could potentially be a display. If the image is too big to be 'comfortable' you will just scale it down. And it won't just be used for watching television.

This might all sound like crazy Minority Report science fiction stuff, but go back to the 80s or 90s with your thin-bezel 50" Plasma and iPad and all your other gizmos and see what they make of them.

All that stuff is being worked on currently, transparent displays, flexible displays, modular displays, laser projectors....we spend so much time consuming information and communicating electronically that all kinds of 'display' technology will develop hugely in the coming decades.

Maybe 15 years is a bit optomistic for a wall TV but it's a very unimaginitive person who things thinks we have reached the 'peak' of anything and everything will stay exactly as it is from now on.

We are decades away from something like wall paint that can act as a display. So until then people are going to be purchasing a physical box that is stuck some where in the room, and 100" is always going to be too big for most people when it comes to that.

When something like display paint eventually arrives Blu-ray will be long gone along with all physical media, replaced with cloud storage and fiber optic transmission of data. The idea of getting up and putting a disc in a player will seem as out of date as rewinding a cassette tape back to the start.

This is what will kill blu-ray long before the need for much higher resolution movies. Already DVD and Blu-ray are used by most tech savvy people as just a way to get the movie physically home from the store, it goes into the computer and gets ripped to a harddrive and played from a media player.

Remove the need to transfer the movie home with a fiber optic cable running into your home and physical media becomes redundant, particularly if you have an unlimited replacement policy so you don't even need the disc as a back up.

dark crystal

Well, we already had the PS3 and so eventually invested in a HD flat screen TV so we could watch blu-rays.

Have to say, I was pretty disappointed overall.

Not sure how to describe it, but well-lit daytime scenes, explosions etc were great, but as soon as the scenes moved to low-lit or night time scenes, the picture quality would decrease immensly. There appears to be a really grainy quality to these type of scenes on blu-ray and it can be really disracting.

For example, we watched 'The Road' there a few weeks back and the picture was so grainy and blurry during the majority of the film, it was really offputting.

The OH loves the big budget action films, so it works well for him, but I find a lot of smaller, drama based films (especially the older ones) just don't benefit from blu-ray at all.

I much prefer to watch DVDs, as the PS3 does a great job upscaling them anyway.

Sad Professor

dark crystal wrote: »

Not sure how to describe it, but well-lit daytime scenes, explosions etc were great, but as soon as the scenes moved to low-lit or night time scenes, the picture quality would decrease immensly. There appears to be a really grainy quality to these type of scenes on blu-ray and it can be really disracting.

Probably just the source. Night scenes are difficult to capture on film. The DP has to use a more sensitive film stock which means more grain. However, grain is a normal part of how a film looks. It's presence on a Blu-ray transfer is usually a good sign as it means there hasn't been any DNR applied.

dark crystal

Sad Professor wrote: »

Probably just the source. Night scenes are difficult to capture on film. The DP has to use a more sensitive film stock which means more grain. However, grain is a normal part of how a film looks. It's presence on a Blu-ray transfer is usually a good sign as it means there hasn't been any DNR applied.

Perhaps, but I never have the same sort of problem when watching normal DVDs. Darker scenes never diminish in quality in the way a blu-ray does.

I understand that movies filmed digitally are far more adept at keeping the picture quality intact during darker scenes, but otherwise, I consistently find DVDs are much clearer when watching the darker scenes.

Sorry, I'm not that technically minded, so am probably not explaining myself that well!

jaykhunter

Maybe projector technology will get so good that the brightness/contrast will be as good as a TV.

Venom

jaykhunter wrote: »

Well blu-rays will come down in price as it becomes the standard. The standard is still DVD; much like DVDs had to get cheaper; when VHS was still the standard

The jump from Video tape to DVD was huge tho and still took a while to take off. Going from DVD to Blueray is just not that big a leap, disc's still way to expensive and so is the hardware.

Venom

Venom wrote: »

The jump from Video tape to DVD was huge tho and still took a while to take off. Going from DVD to Blueray is just not that big a leap, disc's still way to expensive and so the hardware.

You can pick up a player for 60 euro, hardly expensive. Regards the discs, elwell they too are far from expensive when you consider that you can buy many for 3 pound. Some newc release can be expensive in shops but online most new release are between 12 and 16 euro. Even in store the prices are rapidly decreasing, Bareney's Version was 13 euro in HMV the week after it's release and they are routinely putting recent releases in the 2 for 22 offer.

Sad Professor

Yeah, I got Inception in the 2 for €22 offer the other day. It was Triple Play as well - includes the Blu-ray, DVD and digital copy.

Basq

Blu-rays have dropped enormously in price.. especially with online retailers.

For example - I went looking this evening to pre-order Source Code - Amazon currently have the DVD for £10, and the Blu-ray + DVD Double-Play for £13).

Bricks and Mortar stores are still quite expensive.. but these same stores are still charging €15 - €20 for a new release DVD so paying €20 - €30 for a new release Blu-ray is hardly ridiculous.

A decent Blu-ray Player can be picked up for under €100.

With regards to the "how long will it last?" - I'm in the they'll certainly live on well past DVD and I don't think this "digital downloads" argument is worth any salt.. the time and effort (and not forgetting the all too often present broadband cap) puts an dampner on downloading a 9 - 10GB HD (MKV or alternative) file.

I'm buying most releases on Blu-ray right now.. but I'm finding myself getting frustrated with Blu-ray titles availability ('Breaking Bad' only available on Region A, same with 'Lost in Translation').. but I often pick up a DVD set cheap (a 25 disc DVD boxset of 'Monk - Season 1 - 6' for €14 last week on Zavvi.. how could you not pick it up?!).

I can see Blu-ray's being around for the long haul.. they're getting more affordable and while they're far from the normal for most households, who knows what will happen in the next 5 - 8 years?

Mickeroo

I've not made the jump to blu-ray yet, but when I rejoin the workforce I plan to!! Don't know how long it will last, dvd has had a pretty good run of it, and it's still going strong in many respects. In fairness though, downloads shmownloads, as long as I live I'll want to have an actual physical collection of movies that I can put on a shelf in my house so that people can come in and see what bloody awesome taste I have and how that makes me ever so slightly cooler than them. :cool:

Sad Professor

How important is owning a film to people? I mean, most of us here could probably be considered part of the VHS generation. We grew up with video tapes of our favourite film that we watched over and over again. Can digital downloading ever really replace that? We can't lend a digital download, we can't put it on our shelf, we can't give it away or sell it.

Mickeroo

Sad Professor wrote: »

How important is owning a film to people? I mean, most of us here could probably be considered part of the VHS generation. We grew up with video tapes of our favourite film that we watched over and over again. Can digital downloading ever really replace that? We can't lend a digital download, we can't put it on our shelf, we can't give it away or sell it.

When it comes to films I genuinely love then its pretty important. Plus one of the best things about having a collection imo is being able to lend movies to people, especially if its a film they've not seen or heard of and one I'm sure they're going to like. It works kind of the same with music too i think.

Frank Black

Digital downloading is the future – it’s going to happen whether we like it or not.
Look at the music industry. If you join a service like Qriocity or similar, for a monthly fee you instantly have access to tens of thousands of albums. That record collection you spent years painstakingly assembling is rendered obsolete.
It will eventually be the same with movies – you won’t own any, they’ll be all stored in the cloud and you’ll pay a small fee to rent them or have access to them all for a monthly fee.
Current problems like broadband caps and speeds will soon be overcome.

Sad Professor

black francis wrote: »

It will eventually be the same with movies – you won’t own any, they’ll be all stored in the cloud and you’ll pay a small fee to rent them or have access to them all for a monthly fee.

Which is where I see digital downloading heading as well. But what about people who want to own a film rather than rent it?

bonerm

Sad Professor wrote: »

How important is owning a film to people? I mean, most of us here could probably be considered part of the VHS generation. We grew up with video tapes of our favourite film that we watched over and over again. Can digital downloading ever really replace that? We can't lend a digital download, we can't put it on our shelf, we can't give it away or sell it.

I think owning hundreds/thousands of DVD/BD's is actually a sickness. It's extension of the book / music collection psychology. It's just a bunch of stuff sitting neatly on your shelves that serve no purpose except to be looked at sitting there.

It'd be interesting for people here to look at every DVD/BD they own and ask themself the following questions.

1) How many times have I watched the movie itself off that particular disk?
2) Have I watched all the extras on the disk?
3) When's the last time I actually watched the movie off the disk?

IMHO, if your answer to
1) isn't : "at least twice"
2) isn't "yes"
and
3) isn't : "in the last couple of years"
then I reckon you're wasting your money.

That test goes doubly-so for titles you've been double and triple dipping on.

I've a lot of DVD/BD myself but I'm slowly phasing the process out in favour of various non-physical, non-own download/renting options. I welcome a non-disk future tbh.

Mickeroo

Sad Professor wrote: »

Which is where I see digital downloading heading as well. But what about people who want to own a film rather than rent it?

I'd imagine it might not be as much of an issue with kids growing up with digital media, as you said VHS generation and all that, the whole idea of owning physical copies of films and that was kind of bred into us I suppose! I'll always want to own a physical copy of something but it's probably going to be different for someone who grows up with downloading/streaming as the norm.

Frank Black

Sad Professor wrote: »

Which is where I see digital downloading heading as well. But what about people who want to own a film rather than rent it?

I'm sure some specialist stores will exist for us, but we'll be a cultural absurdity and will constantly get laughed at by the younger hipper kids
Seriously though, why is it important to actually own the movie or album or game?
If you’ve access to it in the best possible quality then what difference does owning it actually make. We’re not defined by our possessions as much as by our tastes.
As Fugazi sang “You are not what you own”

Sad Professor

bonerm wrote: »

I think owning hundreds/thousands of DVD/BD's is actually a sickness. It's extension of the book / music collection psychology. It's just a bunch of stuff sitting neatly on your shelves that serve no purpose except to be looked at sitting there.

It'd be interesting for people here to look at every DVD/BD they own and ask themself the following questions.

1) How many times have I watched the movie itself off that particular disk?
2) Have I watched all the extras on the disk?
3) When's the last time I actually watched the movie off the disk?

IMHO, if your answer to
1) isn't : "at least twice"
2) isn't "yes"
and
3) isn't : "in the last couple of years"
then I reckon you're wasting your money.

That test goes doubly-so for titles you've been double and triple dipping on.

I've a lot of DVD/BD myself but I'm slowly phasing the process out in favour of various non-physical, non-own download/renting options. I welcome a non-disk future tbh.

Which is a very good point. One which I've taken to heart since switching to Blu-ray. So far I've only bought films that I know I will watch multiple times. Most of the films I've bought on Blu-ray I would count among my favourite and most watched films, which I don't mind double-dipping for because I know I'll get my money's worth back. But this still doesn't eliminate the question of ownership. I mean, Vertigo, for example, is one of my favourite films, I watch it a dozen times a year. I don't want to pay a monthly fee to watch this film, I want to own it.

iMax

I jumped on board BD back in 2009, I jumped out of it about eight months later. The extra cost per disk wasn't worth it for me. I sold off what I had & went back to DVD, even now though, I've a wall with several hundred DVDs (& CDs) on it & they haven't been taken out of their case in eight+ months. Got a mac mini under the TV with Plex & have everything I own in HD format accessible when I want, Have the house networked & it's playable in 3 rooms, the only problem is, I don't have time for them any more (kids), I'm currently evaluating what to drop from the hard drive because although I like having them, I know I'm probably never gonna watch them again. I get maybe an hour to watch stuff most days & I'm filling that with TV mostly.

Frank Black

Sad Professor wrote: »

Vertigo, for example, is one of my favourite films, I watch it a dozen times a year. I don't want to pay a monthly fee to watch this film, I want to own it.

But you won't be paying the monthly fee to watch Vertigo, you'll be paying it to watch anything/everything you want to watch (including Vertigo).

If you love a film so much that you want to own a piece of it you can always buy some memorabilia associated with the movie.

bonerm

Sad Professor wrote: »

Which is a very good point. One which I've taken to heart since switching to Blu-ray. So far I've only bought films that I know I will watch multiple times. Most of the films I've bought on Blu-ray I would count among my favourite and most watched films, which I don't mind double-dipping for because I know I'll get my money's worth back. But this still doesn't eliminate the question of ownership. I mean, Vertigo, for example, is one of my favourite films, I watch it a dozen times a year. I don't want to pay a monthly fee to watch this film, I want to own it.

I think I'd be happier then to spend some nominal amount a dozen times in that case (provided it worked out cheaper than buying it). It's not really an either/or question. If it worked cheaper to own the title rather than re-renting constantly then I'd rather own. However I'd just as happily not have it as a physical possession or indefinite licence if it was something that, history had proven, I amen't interested in rewatching (which is probably the definion of 90% of the stuff I own).

Again good metrics is a way of weeding out what's worth buying and what is not but in answer to your question I generally have no particular interest in "owning" the movie.

Sad Professor

black francis wrote: »

But you won't be paying the monthly fee to watch Vertigo, you'll be paying it to watch anything/everything you want to watch (including Vertigo).

If you love a film so much that you want to own a piece of it you can always buy some memorabilia associated with the movie.

If I own it I can lend it to a friend, I can sell it, I can give it away. It's mine to do with as I please. Maybe I don't want to pay a monthly fee to have access to my favourite films on some server somewhere. Like with books, I want to be able to share films with my friends. In fact, perhaps sharing is the main point that the studios need to be taking away from illegal downloading. People don't just want convenience, there's a social element as well.

It's also worth nothing that on the music front not everyone agrees that cloud/subscription services are the future. Apple is still very much of the mind that people want to own music.

conorhal

black francis wrote: »

I'm sure some specialist stores will exist for us, but we'll be a cultural absurdity and will constantly get laughed at by the younger hipper kids
Seriously though, why is it important to actually own the movie or album or game?
If you’ve access to it in the best possible quality then what difference does owning it actually make. We’re not defined by our possessions as much as by our tastes.
As Fugazi sang “You are not what you own”

Why? Because I'm neiter a communist nor a relativist. :mad:

I'm deeply suspicious of digital downloads, like pay per view, there is a move to a model of use that is more akin to rental then ownership. I like the concrete certianty that what I have paid for I own and from my cold dead hands they will have to take it!

Frank Black

Sad Professor wrote: »

If I own it I can lend it to a friend, I can sell it, I can give it away. It's mine to do with as I please. Maybe I don't want to pay a monthly fee to have access to my favourite films on some server somewhere. Like with books, I want to be able to share films with my friends. In fact, perhaps sharing is the main point that the studios need to be taking away from illegal downloading. People don't just want convenience, there's a social element as well.

It's also worth nothing that on the music front not everyone agrees that cloud/subscription services are the future. Apple is still very much of the mind that people want to own music.

You're thinking about this the wrong way. All your friends will be members as well. You won't need to physically give them something, they'll already have access to it. In the same way 'selling it' will become a moot point as everyone else will 'own' it as well.
The social element will be increased not decreased.

indough

why would digital downloading/streaming mean and end to ownership? it hasnt done for games or music. you will likely still have the option to both buy or rent the rights to watch each film