Then you'd forget the minions that could give two _ about IME like myself.
C'mon lets not debate the X player vs x player. we'd get nowhere. And this isnt the place for that.

Still dodging the point about brand new players coming close to $100 in parity for pricing.


Someone said they like to look for trends in the neilsens that indicate hd dvd could reach parity.

So why not look at how the "gap" in player pricing is being eroded far from what it was months ago?

All I'm saying.

On this player issue . . . frankly I am surprised it has taken BD this long to close the gap - because the 1.0 players are so cheap to build - look at all the components they are missing.

And if you give "two hoots" for IME and IF . . . then you just doomed the format without them to 100% niche status. Becauae they are going to make HDM different than DVD . . NOT 1080x24P or DTS-MA.

On this player issue . . . frankly I am surprised it has taken BD this long to close the gap - because the 1.0 players are so cheap to build - look at all the components they are missing.

And if you give "two hoots" for IME and IF . . . then you just doomed the format without them to 100% niche status. Becauae they are going to make HDM different than DVD . . NOT 1080x24P or DTS-MA.I don't know about you, but a player doesn't seem very "next gne" if it's just a DVD player with better resolution. It's better to have the ability and not use it, than not have it at all.

Then you'd forget that the studios are the ones who like it and are going to do it anyway.

I see more releases with "1080p" than "PIP".

So you're going to tell me what studios like?

I don't want to debate interactivity vs 1080p and advanced audio. Some things will be important to some and not others. And even so, this is probably not the place for such a debate.

Still a dance around.

A very good indication of the kind of talk things will steer to as BD players drop in price.

I see more releases with "1080p" than "PIP".
[QUOTE]Well, half the discs released can't have PiP.
[QUOTE]So you're going to tell me what studios like?
I can only repeat what they have said.

I don't know about you, but a player doesn't seem very "next gne" if it's just a DVD player with better resolution. It's better to have the ability and not use it, than not have it at all.

Right, and since a consumer has a 1080i set right not, the best choice for him is a 1080i player? WHat if he wants to upgrade his 32 inch for a 50? Chances are it will be 1080p compatible.

But, someone else led me here, and I should not have let them. The a3 has its merits, so does the 1400. I'm not here to bash the a3. I was just saying there was a $150 price gap on amazon! That its just as noteworthy as all this "HD DVD player prices are so low" hoopla.

Right, and since a consumer has a 1080i set right not, the best choice for him is a 1080i player? WHat if he wants to upgrade his 32 inch for a 50? Chances are it will be 1080p compatible.
And he still won't be able to see the difference. The fact is that the best eyes can't see the difference 99.999345% of the time. It's another strawman like bandwidth.

[QUOTE=edgebsl;12304241]I see more releases with "1080p" than "PIP".
[QUOTE]Well, half the discs released can't have PiP.
I can only repeat what they have said.

Slim, I do see what you're saying. And respect your opinion that you feel IME is so important.
Just dont see how it adds to the disc.

This stuff has been beaten.

Hope you have a "plan c" my fellow movie enthusiast!

plan a "talk about hd dvd's low price" when that point is dead-
plan b "talk about profiles" when that point is dead and profile 1.1 players are everywhere-
plan c ?

We agree in more ways than you think. You were pointing out what the 1400 lacked ,I was pointing out what the a3 lacked. IME would be a deal breaker for you.1080p24 and dts ma was a deal breaker for me. See what I mean?

The original point was that the price gap is closing.

I pointed out just an example of the pricing alone on amazon being the closest it's been. The response I got was trashing the 1400 basically saying it was going to be obsolete based on IME. And I could say the same thing based on where I feel the a3 is lacking. So the player comparison's is kinda unnecessary.

The point was that Blu Ray is closing the price gap more than ever.
Especially for the savvy shopper. Seen the price on the Sharp?

Then the gap gets closer to $100.

What happens when the gap is virtaully gone? More $98 sales?

Hold on to that profile talking point, hold on to it for dear ilfe.

I'm of the opinion by that the time BR players reach a parity in price with the lowest HD DVD can offer, dual format players will become so prevalent and affordable that hardware price difference will not much favor going with 2 players instead of a universal one.

I'm going to put in a flick..

Goodnight gents.
Hope you enjoy one tonight too!!

[QUOTE=Slim GoodBooty;12304254][QUOTE=edgebsl;12304241]I see more releases with "1080p" than "PIP".


Slim, I do see what you're saying. And respect your opinion that you feel IME is so important.
Just dont see how it adds to the disc.

This stuff has been beaten.

Hope you have a "plan c" my fellow movie enthusiast!

plan a "talk about hd dvd's low price" when that point is dead-
plan b "talk about profiles" when that point is dead and profile 1.1 players are everywhere-
plan c ?

I never said IME was important.
HD DVD will always have one thing that BD will never have.
HD DVD plays all features on all discs. That is bad, and Disney and Warner know it.

Well, the NPD data mentioned above, for one. If only 20% or less of folks even KNOW that the PS3 is a movie player, then isn't it going to follow that the disc attach rate will likewise be small when taking the PS3 population as a whole?

Which seems to mesh with the overall numbers I believe I've seen estimated here:

As of now, there are ~600K-700K HD DVD decks out there.

As of now there are ~500K-600K BR decks out there. There are also ~3.5Mil PS3's

That's a ~5:1 ratio of BR to HD players, yet only ~2:1 disc sales.

If we use the "20% of PS3's as movie players" data from the NPD poll mentioned above, then the combined total BR players being actively used for movies is ~1.2-1.3 million. Which just about exactly matches the disc sales ratio.

So, either all player attach rates are REALLY low. Or, standalone deck movie attach rates are on par with HD DVD and, as we have corroborated by the poll, and 4 out of 5 PS3's aren't playing movies.

Talk, you said, "I don't know how you draw conclusions from this. ", and I posted the above as a response.

Do you have a different reason to account for the diparity between the installed base of movie players and disc sales?

plan a "talk about hd dvd's low price" when that point is dead-
plan b "talk about profiles" when that point is dead and profile 1.1 players are everywhere-
plan c ?

:confused:

I never said IME was important.
HD DVD will always have one thing that BD will never have.
HD DVD plays all features on all discs.* That is bad, and Disney and Warner know it.
* As long as you don't have the LG BH100 player, or have a title that has DTS-HD audio on it.

What is the point of this pointless back & forth bickering? This is the same crap that gets bickered time and time and time and time and time again to no end. Blu-ray has profiles. We all know. Get over it.

* As long as you don't have the LG BH100 player, or have a title that has DTS-HD audio on it.
The LG doesn't count, and actually neither does DTS. No one could do any of the fancy DTS codecs. There was no silicon for them. You can still hear the movie just fine. A little different than not being able to access features. They'll just be missing on 1.0 players and network features are an entirely different issue. An insider has said that Studios are concerned about that.

What is the point of this pointless back & forth bickering? This is the same crap that gets bickered time and time and time and time and time again to no end. Blu-ray has profiles. We all know. Get over it. Which makes me wonder why you're involved in such plebeian matters.

Then you would forget to mention that the A3 is 1080i , no 24fps and lacking in the audio dept compared to the 1400.

I thought I was being generous even comparing the a3 to it. The a35 would make a fairer comparison since it has more of the advanced features. But of course, it's more expensive.

Isn't the 1400 the biggest pos plagued with all sorts of problems?

With the recent cc sale I was contemplating picking one up but upon visiting the bd player forum's owners' thread I discovered that it doesn't appear to be a good player. :eek:

Why bring up the last 6 weeks that only seem to reinforce the larger trend we've been seeing? One where HD DVD software sales are closing the gap while Blu-ray players seem to be outselling the HD DVD players hand over fist.How is 71:29 closing the gap? During weeks where there isn't a major HD DVD-exclusive release Blu-ray continues to lead by roughly a 2:1 margin. I fail to see your evidence of HD DVD "closing the gap".
And when we compare exclusives to exclusives, it seems to me that HD DVD is pulling more weight. Transformers' Paramount numbers clearly outsold SM3 by comparison -- and with a fraction of the players.If you believe Paramount's numbers, which the studios certainly don't. This (http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/which-studio-in-hollywood-is-telling-a-big-ass-fat-stupid-lie/) article debunks Paramount's claim of 190K units sold with Nielsen's numbers of less than half that, and Paramount doesn't dispute Nielsen's numbers.

Talk, you said, "I don't know how you draw conclusions from this. ", and I posted the above as a response.

Do you have a different reason to account for the diparity between the installed base of movie players and disc sales?Any attempt to determine an attach rate for Blu-ray requires hypothesizing the number of PS3's being used as Blu-ray players, and regardless it's going to be nothing but a guess. I fail to see why attach rates matter, a studio profits based on total sales, not attached sales, and future attach rates will certainly change (i.e. those sucked in by $98 HD DVD players at Walmart are unlikely to consume at the same rate as those buying $1000 Pioneer Blu-ray players).

Any attempt to determine an attach rate for Blu-ray requires hypothesizing the number of PS3's being used as Blu-ray players, and regardless it's going to be nothing but a guess. I fail to see why attach rates matter, a studio profits based on total sales, not attached sales, and future attach rates will certainly change (i.e. those sucked in by $98 HD DVD players at Walmart are unlikely to consume at the same rate as those buying $1000 Pioneer Blu-ray players).

Well, I think it matters for a couple of reasons:

1) You have on a couple of occasions used the likelihood of the PS3 becoming 1.1 enabled in order to be able to state that only a minority of existing players would not have 1.1 capability. Problem is that due to poor PS3 attach rates, it would appear that standalone decks may account for 50% or better of disc viewers. Which means studios are in a dilemma as to how to deal with 1.1 content without alienating user base.

2) It's been said a number of times that the PS3 was sold to studios as a BR trojan horse, jumpstarting a large number of installed players. Given A) lackluster PS3 sales, and B) poor attach rates within those sales, it's unclear of how long the "PS3 effect" may satisfy studio expectations for overall volume.


Thus I think total number of players as a whole, including what percentage of those are standalone decks matter.

And we aren't hypothesizing completely in this thread. The poll data referenced earlier gives us some reasonable basis, no?

How is 71:29 closing the gap? During weeks where there isn't a major HD DVD-exclusive release Blu-ray continues to lead by roughly a 2:1 margin. I fail to see your evidence of HD DVD "closing the gap".
If you believe Paramount's numbers, which the studios certainly don't. This (http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/which-studio-in-hollywood-is-telling-a-big-ass-fat-stupid-lie/) article debunks Paramount's claim of 190K units sold with Nielsen's numbers of less than half that, and Paramount doesn't dispute Nielsen's numbers.

Umm have you even looked at that article? All I see is a bunch of reporting about Blu Ray studios whining that their discs really had to have sold more than a HD DVD disc cause like it was Blu Ray or something and that even if (not that it is possible) it actually did sell more then there was a payoff of 50 million so there had to be a problem. Are you sure that the name of that site shouldn't be HollywoodinHighDef Reporter? I have never in my life read a piece of "journalism" where the ONLY "facts" come from the "enemy" and when asked about it Paramount responded with "Our numbers are right, they don't have all the numbers". Well color me surprised that Paramount would have their OWN sales numbers and have them be a bit more accurate than say Fox or Disney's versions of the same numbers.

Sorry for the rant. Just tired of this piece of misinformation being taken as the gospel. Note that if it was the exact reverse it would bother me just as badly. Bad reporting and sensationalistic "shilling" (I am not saying the reporter is a paid shill I am using the word because it fits) and then having people use it as "facts" just annoys me.

How is 71:29 closing the gap? During weeks where there isn't a major HD DVD-exclusive release Blu-ray continues to lead by roughly a 2:1 margin. I fail to see your evidence of HD DVD "closing the gap".

I'm not looking at any one week ... we're looking at a *trend* ... and the YTD and SI numbers clearly show that the gap is closing. You don't even need to look at that if you don't want to. Just look at the press releases from the BDA: First it was 'with more than a 2:1 advantage is software sales' and now it's 'with nearly a 2:1 advantage'. So, over the course of the year, that lead has been cut -- and there are more Blu-ray players with respect to HD DVD players month over month. It's pretty clear, but if you don't want to see it, I can't make you. I suppose I could say I fail to see evidence of Disney Exclusivity because I can pick up Bridge to Terabithia on HD DVD as well. /shrug


If you believe Paramount's numbers, which the studios certainly don't. This (http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/which-studio-in-hollywood-is-telling-a-big-ass-fat-stupid-lie/) article debunks Paramount's claim of 190K units sold with Nielsen's numbers of less than half that, and Paramount doesn't dispute Nielsen's numbers.

Ahh ... so now we're using essentially Nikki Fincke's blog as confirmation of a debunking? Are you serious? Paramount has completely stood by their numbers. Nikki's 'information' was leaked by Blu-ray exclusive studios (big surprise here). It seems everyone took Warner's numbers as fact when they announced them. Nikki's article shows that their numbers were off too. How come she didn't call them out? Hmmmm. I wonder. Maybe some sour grapes due to Paramount dropping the format? Probably. :D

(i.e. those sucked in by $98 HD DVD players at Walmart are unlikely to consume at the same rate as those buying $1000 Pioneer Blu-ray players).Wouldn't that be nothing more than a guess?:confused:

Any attempt to determine an attach rate for Blu-ray requires hypothesizing the number of PS3's being used as Blu-ray players, and regardless it's going to be nothing but a guess. I fail to see why attach rates matter, a studio profits based on total sales, not attached sales, and future attach rates will certainly change (i.e. those sucked in by $98 HD DVD players at Walmart are unlikely to consume at the same rate as those buying $1000 Pioneer Blu-ray players).

Less than a year ago, you were hypothesizing that 80-90% of PS3's were used to watch movies based on Sony Survey's and Data. You seemed to think they mattered a big deal then.

As far as your $98 versus $1000, that's not a valid comparison and you know it. Sure, the person that buys the $1000 player is likely to have a much larger library ... but how many of those people are there compared to those buying the $98 player? Even though the average consumer buying the $98 player is going to buy less movies than the consumer buying the $1000 player, there are tons and tons more of '$98 consumers' than '$1000 consumers'. The delta will clearly be made up on volume. These early adopters are what? 2% of the market? Very niche. So for every 2 people that buy $1000 players and tons of movies, we have 98 people that buy $98 players and lots of movies. In the long run, it's pretty clear where the volumes come from. If that weren't the case, SACD and DVD-A would still be around as the formats could have been sustained based on the high-end consumer purchasing [as per your argument above], no? /shrug

Less than a year ago, you were hypothesizing that 80-90% of PS3's were used to watch movies based on Sony Survey's and Data. You seemed to think they mattered a big deal then.
And that's how it was sold to Warner and Paramount and why they went neutral. It is also why Paramount is now HD DVD and Warner is most likely going to follow.

Isn't the 1400 the biggest pos plagued with all sorts of problems?

With the recent cc sale I was contemplating picking one up but upon visiting the bd player forum's owners' thread I discovered that it doesn't appear to be a good player. :eek:

I had problems, up till the latest firmware update.

So far, so good.

I don't think the Toshiba's have had the greatest track record either.

Now that the Sharp seems to be selling the cheapest, I think that's the one to keep an eye on.

And that's how it was sold to Warner and Paramount and why they went neutral. It is also why Paramount is now HD DVD and Warner is most likely going to follow.

This is a question to any insider. I keep reading on these forums people saying warner is going to go HD DVD exculsive. Why do people think this is going to happen? It seems that if they were going to accept the same sort of promotional "help" that paramount got they would have already done it. I am format neautral so it doesn't really matter to me one way or the other. I tend to buy warner discs in hd dvd, because i like playing media more in my stand alone and i like bitstreaming the new codecs to my reciever. That is besides the point though. It seems to me if warner was going to go exculsive it would be blu ray, just for the simple fact that they sell more copies of a given title in blu ray then HD DVD, ie. 300. I would also expect Warner to at least wait until the dust settles from this holiday season, before making any decision. So how would anyone have any idea what they are gonna do. Am i missing something?

This is a question to any insider. I keep reading on these forums people saying warner is going to go HD DVD exculsive. Why do people think this is going to happen? It seems that if they were going to accept the same sort of promotional "help" that paramount got they would have already done it. I am format neautral so it doesn't really matter to me one way or the other. I tend to buy warner discs in hd dvd, because i like playing media more in my stand alone and i like bitstreaming the new codecs to my reciever. That is besides the point though. It seems to me if warner was going to go exculsive it would be blu ray, just for the simple fact that they sell more copies of a given title in blu ray then HD DVD, ie. 300. I would also expect Warner to at least wait until the dust settles from this holiday season, before making any decision. So how would anyone have any idea what they are gonna do. Am i missing something?
Disc sales are not a factor in this at this point, and as far as I can see they aren't going to be. Three of the biggest movies of the year have barely sold 100k total.

This is a question to any insider. I keep reading on these forums people saying warner is going to go HD DVD exculsive. Why do people think this is going to happen? It seems that if they were going to accept the same sort of promotional "help" that paramount got they would have already done it. I am format neautral so it doesn't really matter to me one way or the other. I tend to buy warner discs in hd dvd, because i like playing media more in my stand alone and i like bitstreaming the new codecs to my reciever. That is besides the point though. It seems to me if warner was going to go exculsive it would be blu ray, just for the simple fact that they sell more copies of a given title in blu ray then HD DVD, ie. 300. I would also expect Warner to at least wait until the dust settles from this holiday season, before making any decision. So how would anyone have any idea what they are gonna do. Am i missing something?

Your argument is based on a ratio - as far as BD outpacing HD. The studios don't look at that. They look at the actual sales numbers per movie - they get the full blown report that Nielsen sends to them. If you have never seen one - just PM me and I will send one from the end of Q1 2007 to you.

HD movies are selling in the thousands. You don't make a decision on that kind of data, other than to continue - or pull the plug. You make a decision based on the potential of the format - it's future - and to see if your decision will allow you to sell more of your product.

You have to look at the big picture.

Nobody knows what they are going to do, so be careful of what you read on the Internet ;) Kevin Tschugihara is the only guy who knows what Warner, New Line & HBO will do, he is the decision maker.

Also, sales aren't as important as profit, which people need to keep a careful eye on. That was one of the reasons why Paramount went back to HD DVD, it was a more profitable model for them. Some like to say it was "the payoff", but that is just deflecting from the facts that BD50's cost more to make than HD30's. Can this change in the future? Certainly, but right now there are two companies that press BD50's, Sony DADC & Cinram. But even with these two, Sony is making about 95% of the discs!

Here is an excellent profile on Kevin Tsujihara

http://collaboratorium.mat.ucsb.edu/events/Bios/kevin_tsujihara.html

So who is incharge of New Line Cinema? I don't see them mentioned in his responsibilities.

I had problems, up till the latest firmware update.

So far, so good.

I don't think the Toshiba's have had the greatest track record either.

Now that the Sharp seems to be selling the cheapest, I think that's the one to keep an eye on.

Is the Sharp a Rebadge?

This seems interesting in an interview of Kevin Tsujihara:

Q 10: Why was the industry unable to resolve the format war between Blu-ray and HD DVD before it reached the market? What went wrong this time?

Part of it, of course, was the ongoing battle for the living room between Microsoft and Sony but also at some point in this process the common wisdom in the industry was that HD-DVD was a short term proposition. The real issue at this point is this: When it is clear that both formats will be in the marketplace for the foreseeable future, why has the industry not made the appropriate adjustment to eliminate consumer confusion and do everything we can to bring about main stream adoption of HD media?

Most people don’t understand the difference between the LCD versus plasma HD monitors, and yet both are flying off the shelves simply because consumers can get the programming they want on either. There is a very simple solution here and that is for all the content providers to produce in both formats and give the consumer a simple choice.

High definition media represents an incredible opportunity for the industry. Having both formats in the market has created a competitive environment that is leading to innovation and competitive pricing. In order for us to see mass adoption of high definition and the concomitant growth in home video revenues we should all be working to lower the price of the hardware. We saw a significant jump in the sales of Toshiba HD-DVD players when they dropped the price of their lowest price player to $399 on April 1st. If we only had one format we would never have seen this kind of competitive pricing this early in the format’s lifecycle.

At a time when the home video business is flat and HD media presents our best hope for near term growth our focus as an industry should be on the consumer and creating the most attractive scenario for them.We have a window of opportunity here and if we continue to perpetuate consumer confusion HD media may become the next laser disk.

http://www.contentagenda.com/info/CA6442866.html

This is a question to any insider. I keep reading on these forums people saying warner is going to go HD DVD exculsive. Why do people think this is going to happen? It seems that if they were going to accept the same sort of promotional "help" that paramount got they would have already done it. I am format neautral so it doesn't really matter to me one way or the other. I tend to buy warner discs in hd dvd, because i like playing media more in my stand alone and i like bitstreaming the new codecs to my reciever. That is besides the point though. It seems to me if warner was going to go exculsive it would be blu ray, just for the simple fact that they sell more copies of a given title in blu ray then HD DVD, ie. 300. I would also expect Warner to at least wait until the dust settles from this holiday season, before making any decision. So how would anyone have any idea what they are gonna do. Am i missing something?

I don't think anyone knows for sure what they're going to do. What we do know is that they've said they'll be looking closely at Q4 and see how HDM does in general -- specifically wrt HDM Player Sales.

That said, to address your point of selling more copies of 300 in Blu-ray, we don't know how much money Warner is making/losing on these formats. What we do know for a fact is that Paramount stated they dropped Blu-ray due to higher production, authoring, and replication costs of that format. Based on this (and other Insider Data), we can deduce that if there are no subsidies involved, it costs more to make X Blu-ray discs than it costs to make the same quantity of HD DVD discs. At what point is break even? We don't know, but it seems they need to sell more on Blu-ray to make the same amount of profit as they would with HD DVD. We have no idea what the ratio is, but I'm sure that Studio's are looking at this from a perspective of:

Do we want to sell 150k units of something at a loss or b/e (Blu-ray)

... versus ...

Do we want to sell 100k units of something at a profit or b/e (HD DVD)

My ratios above are just guesses as I don't know what the point is, but the data we have does seem to indicate it takes more Blu-ray sales to get back to even than it takes HD DVD sales.

Nobody knows what they are going to do, so be careful of what you read on the Internet ;) Kevin Tschugihara is the only guy who knows what Warner, New Line & HBO will do, he is the decision maker.

Also, sales aren't as important as profit, which people need to keep a careful eye on. That was one of the reasons why Paramount went back to HD DVD, it was a more profitable model for them. Some like to say it was "the payoff", but that is just deflecting from the facts that BD50's cost more to make than HD30's. Can this change in the future? Certainly, but right now there are two companies that press BD50's, Sony DADC & Cinram. But even with these two, Sony is making about 95% of the discs!

Dave,

This has been brought up before; have you heard anything on this front first hand? Specifically, do Studios have an issue with their competition being responsible for pressing their discs/content/IP and bringing them to Market? Isn't this equivilent to Honda relying on Toyota to build and get their product to the showroom?

Q 5: Will the digital distribution business scale do as well for the studios as the DVD business did, and if not what does that mean for your margins over the long term?

Yes, in time the digital distribution business will scale.VOD is a terrific industry wide opportunity and will improve margins relatively quickly while EST and High Definition media will do the same longer term.

He is very bullish on VOD - notice the word "terrific"

Q 10: Why was the industry unable to resolve the format war between Blu-ray and HD DVD before it reached the market? What went wrong this time?

Most people don’t understand the difference between the LCD versus plasma HD monitors, and yet both are flying off the shelves simply because consumers can get the programming they want on either. There is a very simple solution here and that is for all the content providers to produce in both formats and give the consumer a simple choice.

Once more - weight/desire for WB staying neutral.

He is very bullish on VOD - notice the word "terrific"



Once more - weight/desire for WB staying neutral.
They see VoD as a better rental model than Blockbuster/Netflix. The cost is damn near zero and the revenue sharing is way better.

They see VoD as a better rental model than Blockbuster/Netflix. The cost is damn near zero and the revenue sharing is way better.

So you agree that profits are VERY important to WB and they will explore any avenue that increases theirs:D

As a supplement to packaged goods.;)

So you agree that profits are VERY important to WB and they will explore any avenue that increases theirs:D

As a supplement to packaged goods.;)

Bottom line is the most important issue.

"At a time when the home video business is flat and HD media presents our best hope for near term growth our focus as an industry should be on the consumer and creating the most attractive scenario for them.We have a window of opportunity here and if we continue to perpetuate consumer confusion HD media may become the next laser disk."

Strange as how we see what we want to see. To me this means the Blu-ray vs. HD-DVD is causing confusion and they need to choose one to help eliminate the confusion.

"At a time when the home video business is flat and HD media presents our best hope for near term growth our focus as an industry should be on the consumer and creating the most attractive scenario for them.We have a window of opportunity here and if we continue to perpetuate consumer confusion HD media may become the next laser disk."

Strange as how we see what we want to see. To me this means the Blu-ray vs. HD-DVD is causing confusion and they need to choose one to help eliminate the confusion.

I see it as support for his stance that all studios should be neutral which he is advocating in this interview. He wants the consumer to choose - not the CEM's nor the studios.

Strange as how we see what we want to see. To me this means the Blu-ray vs. HD-DVD is causing confusion and they need to choose one to help eliminate the confusion.

Really? Here is the quote that puts his position in context for me.

The real issue at this point is this: When it is clear that both formats will be in the marketplace for the foreseeable future, why has the industry not made the appropriate adjustment to eliminate consumer confusion and do everything we can to bring about main stream adoption of HD media?

Most people don’t understand the difference between the LCD versus plasma HD monitors, and yet both are flying off the shelves simply because consumers can get the programming they want on either. There is a very simple solution here and that is for all the content providers to produce in both formats and give the consumer a simple choice.

Bottom line is the most important issue.

To WB it is. They have been very vocal about this. Too bad the other studios see it differently isn't it?

Dave,

This has been brought up before; have you heard anything on this front first hand? Specifically, do Studios have an issue with their competition being responsible for pressing their discs/content/IP and bringing them to Market? Isn't this equivalent to Honda relying on Toyota to build and get their product to the showroom?

I have been told that this was one of the factors in Paramount's decision. Technicolor is their fabricator of choice and they (as of this summer) couldn't do BD50 discs with any type of consistency in regard to yields, so Paramount's discs were being made by Sony DADC.

There is a way to tell where a disc was made by the fabricator based upon the serial number on the inner ring of the disc, but I need to find out if I can share this information in public or not before I disclose how to read the discs. Needless to say, I went through over 100 BD50 discs and only 6 were made by Cinram (Warner Discs) and all the rest were made by Sony DADC (Disney, Sony, FOX, Paramount and Warner discs). While I don't own every single BD50 disc that has been manufactured, sampling over 25% of total releases was a pretty big sample of discs and I think it is quite telling that Sony DADC has been manufacturing a vast majority of the discs for the format.

The question is, does this really mean anything? Since only about 3.5 million discs have been sold on the format, one facility can certainly handle this amount of discs over the span of 12 months, but why aren't Panasonic, Technicolor and Cinram getting more involved with BD50 production?

The question is, does this really mean anything? Since only about 3.5 million discs have been sold on the format, one facility can certainly handle this amount of discs over the span of 12 months, but why aren't Panasonic, Technicolor and Cinram getting more involved with BD50 production?

Because of the Yield rates?

Last I heard it was 80% (sort of) - 20% reject rate may be too much to swallow and allow a pressing to make money?

This seems interesting in an interview of Kevin Tsujihara:

Q 10: Why was the industry unable to resolve the format war between Blu-ray and HD DVD before it reached the market? What went wrong this time?

Part of it, of course, was the ongoing battle for the living room between Microsoft and Sony...
http://www.contentagenda.com/info/CA6442866.html

Interesting that the 1st cause for the format war he mentions is the console/media device battle between MS and Sony rather than many other issues he could have cited.

Is the Sharp a Rebadge?

No, at least from what I have heard it was a new design all the way.
I think it's the fastest loading hdm player, although the actual times were exaggerated a bit.

The big drawback is no DTS MA. And no bitstreaming..you have to let the player do the decoding. That's why I passed on it. The PQ is supposed to be superb though, but haven't had the chance to check it out firsthand.

There's a thread dedicated in the blu ray section to it.

Because of the Yield rates?

Last I heard it was 80% (sort of) - 20% reject rate may be too much to swallow and allow a pressing to make money?

Sony has stated publicly that their yield rates are "slightly lower" than what they get with BD25's, which are in the low-mid 80's. Other compainies won't make them at all other than checkdiscs (Technicolor). 80% when you are pressing a couple of million discs isn't a huge deal, when you are pressing 100's of millions of discs, it becomes a very big deal.

"Do we want to sell 150k units of something at a loss or b/e (Blu-ray)

... versus ...

Do we want to sell 100k units of something at a profit or b/e (HD DVD)"

Sorry, but this is just FUD. A month back people were yammering on about the replication costs so I got qoutes from two manufacturing houses for hd dvd 15/30 and Blu Ray 25 at 10,000 units. (and yes a hard coat was included) The price differences were pennies per disc. And all of their prices were very low. While the replication costs may differ with the large houses that the big boys use, it sure wouldnt be more expensive. I have a hard time believing releasing on hd is more profitable becasue of replication costs when the difference is a dime a disc...or even a quarter!

Authoring? Maybe...but I'd like to see some hard figures on that too.

David:

I have heard that HD DVD rejects can be recycled - crushed up and used as raw material to make new ones.

Can BD do the same? Questioning the polution of the raw plastic with the coating.

Who did you get a quote from for BD50 discs?

David:

I have heard that HD DVD rejects can be recycled - crushed up and used as raw material to make new ones.

Can BD do the same? Questioning the polution of the plastic with the coating.

Lee, I'm not sure, but I'll see ping someone to get an answer.

Who did you get a quote from for BD50 discs?

Sorry David, I typed too fast!!

The indie houses cant do 50s yet.

The BD25 vs the HD30 10cents higher for the hd30.
And the HD15 was less than a quarter cheaper than the bd 25.

So that leaves room for a lot of speculation about the bd50.

But Warner isnt doing 50s yet are they?
25 and 30 gig right?

Warner has BD50's, but not very many of them. The Departed was a BD50 though as well as a few others. There is a website that keeps track of this type of data though.

Because of the Yield rates?

Last I heard it was 80% (sort of) - 20% reject rate may be too much to swallow and allow a pressing to make money?

Do we know for a fact that the 80% number was wrt BD50 and not BD25? Dave seemed to give us some different information ...

Any updates on this Dave?

I'd be willing to guess the big dogs pay less than $3 a disc for a bd50 when everything is said and done.(packaging, shrink wrap the works) Assuming they are pressing units at least in the tens of thousands.

How can they not be making profit?

David:

I have heard that HD DVD rejects can be recycled - crushed up and used as raw material to make new ones.


Can they make cds, dvds and blu rays out of those?
I'm thinking ahead here.;)

Both are correct - you can say that out of 100 discs sold, the ratio is ~3:2 which reflects say a ~ 65/35 ratio split.

You can also say that 35% x 2 = 70%, which is within 5% of 65% or "close to double"

It's like margin vs markup, where 1.67*cost price = retail price and retail price *.6 = cost price.

Totally wrong. A ~3:2 is the same as ~60/40 ratio split not a ~65/35. It is like you rounded and rounded until you got the number you wanted. :)

Do we know for a fact that the 80% number was wrt BD50 and not BD25? Dave seemed to give us some different information ...

Any updates on this Dave?

Sony stated in a press release that they were receiving "slightly less" yields on their BD50 lines compared to their BD25's, which places their yields in the high 70's. The "other" company that is making BD50's are getting yield about 15% less than this as of a few weeks ago.

Before people get this panties in a knot though, with the amount of software being produced right now, this isn't a big thing. But to challenge DVD, it becomes a bigger issue because as the numbers of discs sold and manufactured grows exponentially, then the profit potential also drops. The fabricators will charge more to make the discs, the studios will mark them up, the distributors will mark them up, the stores will mark them ups and we as consumers will eventually pay more for the software.

Sony stated in a press release that they were receiving "slightly less" yields on their BD50 lines compared to their BD25's, which places their yields in the high 70's. The "other" company that is making BD50's are getting yield about 15% less than this as of a few weeks ago.

Before people get this panties in a knot though, with the amount of software being produced right now, this isn't a big thing. But to challenge DVD, it becomes a bigger issue because as the numbers of discs sold and manufactured grows exponentially, then the profit potential also drops. The fabricators will charge more to make the discs, the studios will mark them up, the distributors will mark them up, the stores will mark them ups and we as consumers will eventually pay more for the software.

And to put some prospective on this - they recently announced, because it was DVD's 10th Birthday that SI, there have been . . . .

8 BILLION DVD's made and sold to the public (WW)

"Do we want to sell 150k units of something at a loss or b/e (Blu-ray)

... versus ...

Do we want to sell 100k units of something at a profit or b/e (HD DVD)"

Sorry, but this is just FUD. A month back people were yammering on about the replication costs so I got qoutes from two manufacturing houses for hd dvd 15/30 and Blu Ray 25 at 10,000 units. (and yes a hard coat was included) The price differences were pennies per disc. And all of their prices were very low. While the replication costs may differ with the large houses that the big boys use, it sure wouldnt be more expensive. I have a hard time believing releasing on hd is more profitable becasue of replication costs when the difference is a dime a disc...or even a quarter!

Authoring? Maybe...but I'd like to see some hard figures on that too.

What manufacturing house did you contact that could do BD50? The cost differential for 10k units from Pacific Disc at HD30 versus BD25 showed that BD25 was more expensive than even HD30. I would imagine BD50 would cost more than BD25. Did they give you any details on yields?

I was pretty sure that no third parties were replicating BD50's, so I'm interested to see who you contacted.

Paramount specifically cited these cost differentials as one of their reasons for the switch, so I can't imagine they're entirely negligable -- which would make this not-FUD. /shrug.

That said, at these volumes, the differences are a write-off. At DVD volumes, they are enormous deal breakers. Considering a difference of just $.25 per disc is *huge* when you're talking 2 Billion DVD's annually. At that point, we're talking about a company writing off $500 Million just in replication costs. That's enough to fund several feature films ... and surely something that shareholders wouldn't be too thrilled about imo.

Sony has stated publicly that their yield rates are "slightly lower" than what they get with BD25's, which are in the low-mid 80's. Other compainies won't make them at all other than checkdiscs (Technicolor). 80% when you are pressing a couple of million discs isn't a huge deal, when you are pressing 100's of millions of discs, it becomes a very big deal.

Just to be sure, is this the same Sony that cited year over year improvements in yields yet gave us lower yield numbers this year than they did in last year's press release? :D

Who did you get a quote from for BD50 discs?

I'm curious to this as well ... I was pretty sure no third parties were able to do this yet.

Read the posts. Including the bd50 was a mistake.
Sorry guys.
I thought I had cleared that up.

No indies make bd50s yet.

"The cost differential for 10k units from Pacific Disc at HD30 versus BD25 showed that BD25 was more expensive than even HD30. I would imagine BD50 would cost more than BD25. Did they give you any details on yields?"

The price I was qouted was 10 cents higher for the hd30 over the bd25.

If you want the 3rd party manufacturer's info, I can PM you.

Warner has BD50's, but not very many of them. The Departed was a BD50 though as well as a few others. There is a website that keeps track of this type of data though.

Hold on, most of Warners recent releases are in fact on BD50:

Oceans's 13
2001
Eyes Wide Shut
The Shining
Clockwork Orange
The Aviator
Twilight Zone: The Movie
Wyatt Earp
300
etc, etc

That said, at these volumes, the differences are a write-off. At DVD volumes, they are enormous deal breakers. Considering a difference of just $.25 per disc is *huge* when you're talking 2 Billion DVD's annually. At that point, we're talking about a company writing off $500 Million just in replication costs. That's enough to fund several feature films ... and surely something that shareholders wouldn't be too thrilled about imo.

You'll have to tell us what studio sells 2 Billion DVDs annually.

I think we are seeing the perpetuation of the idea of the bd50 being so bad it will scare Warner away.

I think that was said here in so many words. Wasn't that what was being hinted at?

But I think if the cards were on the table and the big concern was the replication of the bd50.I think someone will step up to the plate and make them feel better about it by cushioning the costs until yeilds improve. Thats a much better proposition than handing them a multi million dollar check.

But of course one of those may get presented and they'll have to do both to counter offer. I think the side that gets Warner exclusive will be the one that wants it the most.

I think we are seeing the perpetuation of the idea of the bd50 being so bad it will scare Warner away.

I think that was said here in so many words. Wasn't that what was being hinted at?

But I think if the cards were on the table and the big concern was the replication of the bd50.I think someone will step up to the plate and make them feel better about it by cushioning the costs until yeilds improve. Thats a much better proposition than handing them a multi million dollar check.

But of course one of those may get presented and they'll have to do both to counter offer. I think the side that gets Warner exclusive will be the one that wants it the most.

So you do not believe that WB is talking with other studios to try to get them to go neutral?

ALL their executives from the President on down have said they will stay neutral . . . but you don't think that is going to happen?

Lee, I honestly dont know what's going to happen.

But I was responding to the other posts hinting otherwise. Some people here "know" Warner is going hd and so forth.

Can I say that I don't like the "tone" that some people here take with Talk.
It's only a few people but still.

It goes against the spirit of this thread. Remember it's a privilege that
Talk,Andy,David and others are here. It's fine to debate and if you don't agree with something.

But try to keep a tone of respect. No one knows this industry better than the insiders here. So noone here should be "talking down" to these guys.

Lets keep these discussions and debates friendly and make all of our insiders feel welcome.

Lee, I honestly dont know what's going to happen.

But I was responding to the other posts hinting otherwise. Some people here "know" Warner is going hd and so forth.

NO ONE here knows what WB is going to do. If they post that they do . . . all they are doing is speculating which is 100% worthless as a definitive answer . . . best guess - that's all.

Can I say that I don't like the "tone" that some people here take with Talk.
It's only a few people but still.

It goes against the spirit of this thread. Remember it's a privilege that
Talk,Andy,David and others are here. It's fine to debate and if you don't agree with something.

But try to keep a tone of respect. No one knows this industry better than the insiders here. So noone here should be "talking down" to these guys.

Lets keep these discussions and debates friendly and make all of our insiders feel welcome.


And their particiaption in these threads is voluntary. SHould they not care to engage in a little more free-spritied discussion, then the Insider's thread is a place that's more heavily moderated.

Indeed no one should be abusive, however.

You'll have to tell us what studio sells 2 Billion DVDs annually.

For all studios, over 2 Billion DVD's are sold annually. The majors make up the brunt of it.

Hold on, most of Warners recent releases are in fact on BD50:

Oceans's 13
2001
Eyes Wide Shut
The Shining
Clockwork Orange
The Aviator
Twilight Zone: The Movie
Wyatt Earp
300
etc, etc

Recently they have been putting more movies on BD50's, but the majority of their titles have been put on BD25's since inception. If you look at the length of a lot of those movies, they are long or they have a lot of bonus features on them (some even include PCM).

For all studios, over 2 Billion DVD's are sold annually. The majors make up the brunt of it.

Then why did you say something silly like:


At that point, we're talking about a company writing off $500 Million just in replication costs.

"The cost differential for 10k units from Pacific Disc at HD30 versus BD25 showed that BD25 was more expensive than even HD30. I would imagine BD50 would cost more than BD25. Did they give you any details on yields?"

The price I was qouted was 10 cents higher for the hd30 over the bd25.

If you want the 3rd party manufacturer's info, I can PM you.

I thought it came out recently that Pacific Disc wasn't actually making the BD-25s either. There were some posts on this. I thought it had come out that they were farming that work out (I think it was to Sony).

If someone knows different, or knows where the posts are, please let me know.

Then why did you say something silly like:

I guess I should have been more clear with the volumes and assumptions. We're discussing a delta of $.25 and using BD25 versus HD30. It's been suggested that BD50 could be as much as $0.75 more.

So if the major studios are making up that $500 million write off, it's still a pretty big chunk of change before we even consider the higher costs of BD50.

That said, let's say it's $100 million per studio. That could still cover the funding of a complete motion picture. If you were a shareholder, would that be okay with you? :confused:

The studio business seems like it's pretty cut throat ... I can't imagine anyone wanting to flush that kind of money down the toilet.

Put another way, didn't the Studio's recently allow the writers to go on strike for revenue share in the amount of $.04 (four cents) per DVD? If $.04 is enough money for them to dig in their heals, imagine $.10 or $.25 or $1.00 :eek:

Hold on, most of Warners recent releases are in fact on BD50:

Oceans's 13
2001
Eyes Wide Shut
The Shining
Clockwork Orange
The Aviator
Twilight Zone: The Movie
Wyatt Earp
300
etc, etc


By the way, Oceans 13 was on a BD25, not a BD50.

"I thought it came out recently that Pacific Disc wasn't actually making the BD-25s either. There were some posts on this. I thought it had come out that they were farming that work out (I think it was to Sony)."

I didnt get my qoutes from pacific. perhaps this farming is why they were higher.

"Hold on, most of Warners recent releases are in fact on BD50:"

How many were Paramount's on bd50?
When did Warner start making BD50s? (month?)

I cant believe Paramount was eating replication costs more on BD25.(In the very beg maybe?) Can't believe Warner was either, until they switched to bd50s.

"We're discussing a delta of $.25 and using BD25 versus HD30."
We are? You have one qoute. I have two very recent qoutes that put the hd30 higher by 10 cents and 12 cents respectively.

Careful there. If 30 or so gigs is enough you just might be making a big case for BD25.

"I thought it came out recently that Pacific Disc wasn't actually making the BD-25s either. There were some posts on this. I thought it had come out that they were farming that work out (I think it was to Sony)."

I didnt get my qoutes from pacific. perhaps this farming is why they were higher.

"Hold on, most of Warners recent releases are in fact on BD50:"

How many were Paramount's?
When did Warner start making BD50s? (month?)

I cant believe Paramount was eating replication costs more on BD25.(In the very beg maybe?) Can't believe Warner was either, until they switched to bd50s.

Just use the links in my SIG - HD DVD Stats and BD Stats - then use the filter feature to go where you want to go.

"I thought it came out recently that Pacific Disc wasn't actually making the BD-25s either. There were some posts on this. I thought it had come out that they were farming that work out (I think it was to Sony)."

I didnt get my qoutes from pacific. perhaps this farming is why they were higher.
snip........


Ok, so the indie you got your quote from actually has their own BD-25 line? They're not sending them out to someone bigger to do the manufacturing?

Just use the links in my SIG - HD DVD Stats and BD Stats - then use the filter feature to go where you want to go.

Lee,

Oceans 13 is NOT a BD50, it is a BD25. I am looking at the disc right now and there is only one bar code on the inner ring, which signifies a BD25.

"I thought it came out recently that Pacific Disc wasn't actually making the BD-25s either. There were some posts on this. I thought it had come out that they were farming that work out (I think it was to Sony)."

I didnt get my qoutes from pacific. perhaps this farming is why they were higher.

"Hold on, most of Warners recent releases are in fact on BD50:"

How many were Paramount's on bd50?
When did Warner start making BD50s? (month?)

I cant believe Paramount was eating replication costs more on BD25.(In the very beg maybe?) Can't believe Warner was either, until they switched to bd50s.

"We're discussing a delta of $.25 and using BD25 versus HD30."
We are? You have one qoute. I have two very recent qoutes that put the hd30 higher by 10 cents and 12 cents respectively.

Careful there. If 30 or so gigs is enough you just might be making a big case for BD25.

I don't have to ... Talk already did that ... 25GB is more than enough. Talk also told us that 15mbps is a relatively high bitrate for Video. Both well within the limits of what HD DVD can do. ;)

And, of course, the best part here is that you get 5GB *more* with HD DVD for *less* money. Not to mention that the HD DVD yields on HD30 are seemingly higher than BD25. It's a bargain! :D

Lee,

Oceans 13 is NOT a BD50, it is a BD25. I am looking at the disc right now and there is only one bar code on the inner ring, which signifies a BD25.

I don't think he was arguing with you. ;)

Probably so, but if the BD was more expensive would'nt they jack up the price on their end too? They certainly would not do the opposite.

I don't have to ... Talk already did that ... 25GB is more than enough. Talk also told us that 15mbps is a relatively high bitrate for Video. Both well within the limits of what HD DVD can do. ;)

And, of course, the best part here is that you get 5GB *more* with HD DVD for *less* money. Not to mention that the HD DVD yields on HD30 are seemingly higher than BD25. It's a bargain! :D
There have been several post of late that by insiders that have pretty much said that 25 and 30 are plenty of space and the bandwidth of HD DVD is plenty. It just gets lost in noise around here.

"And, of course, the best part here is that you get 5GB *more* with HD DVD for *less* money. Not to mention that the HD DVD yields on HD30 are seemingly higher than BD25. It's a bargain!"

You have you're qoute, I have my two.
Unless we see a price sheet from all the major replicators in play it wont be settled.

I wouldnt gloat over the hd30 being cheaper than the bd25 until you have more hard data, becasue I'm being told by replicators that this is not the case.

By the way, Oceans 13 was on a BD25, not a BD50.

Just going by what was quoted here:

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1080/oceansthirteen.html

Probably so, but if the BD was more expensive would'nt they jack up the price on their end too? They certainly would not do the opposite.

Not if it is being subsidized ...

And clearly, they are doing the opposite ... several significant Buy One Get One Free offers by BDA Exclusive Studios have brought Blu-ray pricing down to $14 or less!

"And, of course, the best part here is that you get 5GB *more* with HD DVD for *less* money. Not to mention that the HD DVD yields on HD30 are seemingly higher than BD25. It's a bargain!"

You have you're qoute, I have my two.
Unless we see a price sheet from all the major replicators in play it wont be settled.

I wouldnt gloat over the hd30 being cheaper than the bd25 until you have more hard data, becasue I'm being told by replicators that this is not the case.

Was AACS included in both quotes? Who did you get this pricing from? And did they replicate the discs themselves or did they farm them out? My pricing is based on Pacific Disc's Information.

Which replicators are telling you that this isn't the case? I've listed my sources, please do the same.

btw, I thought you contacted one manufacturing house, not two? When did you last contact them?

Lee,

Oceans 13 is NOT a BD50, it is a BD25. I am looking at the disc right now and there is only one bar code on the inner ring, which signifies a BD25.

Is that right? Those stats have been very acurate in the past. Someone seems to have made a mistake then.

I will send an email to the site - Format War Central and tell them what you said.

http://formatwarcentral.com/

PS: It does happen - The Hulk is mislabled on the box - shows 2.40 when it should have been 1.85.

Is that right? Those stats have been very acurate in the past. Someone seems to have made a mistake then.

I will send an email to the site - Format War Central and tell them what you said.

http://formatwarcentral.com/

PS: It does happen - The Hulk is mislabled on the box - shows 2.40 when it should have been 1.85.

Ooops ... sorry Dave, I guess he was ... :o

Was AACS included in both quotes? Who did you get this pricing from? And did they replicate the discs themselves or did they farm them out? My pricing is based on Pacific Disc's Information.

Which replicators are telling you that this isn't the case? I've listed my sources, please do the same.

btw, I thought you contacted one manufacturing house, not two? When did you last contact them?


My first qoute was from Pro Action Media..
The second was from a company I've done a lot of business with...I'll have to ask permision. Their price was better than Pacific or Pro Action.

I see your magic Pacific qoute is now a 4 cent difference on 10,000 bulk.
Perhaps your data is outdated?

Not if it is being subsidized ...

And clearly, they are doing the opposite ... several significant Buy One Get One Free offers by BDA Exclusive Studios have brought Blu-ray pricing down to $14 or less!

That's why I'm interested in knowing if the indie actually has their own BD line as well as HD DVD line.

Oh wait!

Pacific disc pricing is the SAME for 100,000 for hd dvd 30 and bd25 bulk.

Recently they have been putting more movies on BD50's, but the majority of their titles have been put on BD25's since inception. If you look at the length of a lot of those movies, they are long or they have a lot of bonus features on them (some even include PCM).

Based on the following handy page http://blu-raystats.com/index.php looks like 57.4% of 2007 WB releases are on BD50s. Since inception is indeed a minority 43.18%.

Oh wait!

Pacific disc pricing is the SAME for 100,000 for hd dvd 30 and bd25 bulk.
Single layer BD must be tough to make.

Single layer BD must be tough to make.

:confused:

Based on the following handy page http://blu-raystats.com/index.php looks like 57.4% of 2007 WB releases are on BD50s. Since inception is indeed a minority 43.18%.

I believe Dave is pointing out that the data on http://blu-raystats.com/index.php is not completely accurate. They're showing Oceans 13 as a BD-50, but Dave is saying the disc is actually a BD-25.

Oh wait!

Pacific disc pricing is the SAME for 100,000 for hd dvd 30 and bd25 bulk.

Did you factor this into the cost?

- AACS encryption is required for Blu-ray replication and optional for HD-DVD replication. There are additional charges for this encryption. Using AACS encryption adds up to 72 hours to the premastering process.

http://www.pacificdisc.com/PrepDVDMasterRep.html

Just going by what was quoted here:

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1080/oceansthirteen.html

Brian,

HDD is wrong on this one. This isn't the first mistake that they have made when it comes to this though. A lot of times the press material sent out to us is incorrect also. FYI to all, to tell if a disc is dual layer or single layer, look at the inner ring on the disc surface and look for UPC codes. If there are two UPC's, then it is a dual layer, if only one UPC, then it is single layer.

Did you factor this into the cost?

- AACS encryption is required for Blu-ray replication and optional for HD-DVD replication. There are additional charges for this encryption. Using AACS encryption adds up to 72 hours to the premastering process.

http://www.pacificdisc.com/PrepDVDMasterRep.html

Yes! I did!

It's the same cost for both HD DVD $2500 but it is not required.

Now dont tell me this bunch would order an unprotected disc?

Notice, also in regards to Mastering (which you're bound to bring up as it is an extra $1000) Most people dont get the plant to make the master!

For every cd and dvd release I have had made for my band. We have had a "replication ready" master made by the mastering studio.

For ex. Even though we only made 5000 copies of "Frustrated" we got Masterdisk in NYC to do our master and they sent the plant a "ready" master.

Yes! I did!

It's the same cost for both HD DVD $2500 but it is not required.

Now dont tell me this bunch would order an unprotected disc?

Notice, also in regards to Mastering (which you're bound to bring up as it is an extra $1000) Most people dont get the plant to make the master!

For every cd and dvd release I have had made for my band. We have had a "replication ready" master made by the mastering studio.

For ex. Even though we only made 5000 copies of "Frustrated" we got Masterdisk in NYC to do our master and they sent the plant a "ready" master.

Is it really less protected than a DVD that a small indie film maker might choose to master? or the CD that you mastered?

**********
Using the 5,000 copy number, the costs from Pacific Disc are as follows:

HD DVD 30GB

$1.79/disc x 5,000 = $7,250
Mastering Charge = $1,500
Total w/o AACS = $10,450
Total w/ AACS = $13,450

Blu-Ray 25GB

$1.95/disc x 5,000 = $9,750
Mastering Charge = $2,500
AACS for 5,000 discs = $3,000
Total w/ AACS = $15,250

I would think that for small indie film makers, these cost differences are significant.

My first qoute was from Pro Action Media..
The second was from a company I've done a lot of business with...I'll have to ask permision. Their price was better than Pacific or Pro Action.

I see your magic Pacific qoute is now a 4 cent difference on 10,000 bulk.
Perhaps your data is outdated?

And 4 cents is what dug the Studio's in and allowed a strike of the writer's guild, no? 4 cents seems like a pretty big deal. Especially when they can get more capacity for less money. ;)

Oh wait!

Pacific disc pricing is the SAME for 100,000 for hd dvd 30 and bd25 bulk.

So the same price, for less? HD DVD is still the better value when you consider that plus replication.

Plus ... how many titles have sold 100k so far? :p

And Pacific Disc is outsourcing BD, no? So they could be getting the benefit of some Subsidy as well.

Is it really less protected than a DVD that a small indie film maker might choose to master? or the CD that you mastered?

**********
Using the 5,000 copy number, the costs from Pacific Disc are as follows:

HD DVD 30GB

$1.79/disc x 5,000 = $7,250
Mastering Charge = $1,500
Total w/o AACS = $10,450
Total w/ AACS = $13,450

Blu-Ray 25GB

$1.95/disc x 5,000 = $9,750
Mastering Charge = $2,500
AACS for 5,000 discs = $3,000
Total w/ AACS = $15,250

I would think that for small indie film makers, these cost differences are significant.

Exactly; not only are they saving almost $5,000 but they're getting an extra 5GB to play with! :D

Is it really less protected than a DVD that a small indie film maker might choose to master?Just my opinion but when you start having to use AACS mastering cost to make BD-25 look more expensive than HD DVD 30 that you are trying a bit to hard since for the vast, vast majority of Blu-ray/HD DVD movies sold AACS will be used.


So the same price, for less?Not quite, after all Blu-ray has higher bandwidth and better durability so you also get more as well.

Not quite, after all Blu-ray has higher bandwidth and better durability so you also get more as well.
There's that thing again. What do you mean by "better". I have CDs that I have had for 20 years and DVDs that I have had for 10. They still play fine. As far as bandwidth, unless we need a lot of Mpeg2 that isn't all that important either.

There's that thing again. What do you mean by "better". I have CDs that I have had for 20 years and DVDs that I have had for 10. They still play fine.:rolleyes:

That's not from durability, that's how you take care of them. I'm sure if you even lightly brushed piece of steel wool on them, they'd skip or become unplayable.

:rolleyes:

That's not from durability, that's how you take care of them. I'm sure if you even lightly brushed piece of steel wool on them, they'd skip or become unplayable.

I know a few people who used steel wool and abrasive cleaners to fix their deeply scratched CDs. :eek:

:rolleyes:

That's not from durability, that's how you take care of them. I'm sure if you even lightly brushed piece of steel wool on them, they'd skip or become unplayable.

I'm sure if you even lightly tapped a ball-peen hammer against a BD (with or without hardcoat,) it'd skip or become unplayable.

Of course, the likelihood of either steel wool or ball-peen hammers coming into contact with CDs, DVDs, HD DVDs or BDs is so small that it's pretty ridiculous to use those scenarios as examples, but we both knew that already, didn't we?

:rolleyes:

That's not from durability, that's how you take care of them. I'm sure if you even lightly brushed piece of steel wool on them, they'd skip or become unplayable.

That is abuse. BD has a hardcoat because they would not handle normal use. CDs and DVDs handle normal use great.

There's that thing again. What do you mean by "better".Come on Slim are you really going to suggest that you would prefer more fragile discs? Personally I love the better durability of Blu-ray though with sophistic reasoning I am sure that better durability can be made into a bad thing. Realistically speaking though most people prefer their discs to be more durable rather than less durable.

Come on Slim are you really going to suggest that you would prefer more fragile discs? Personally I love the better durability of Blu-ray though with sophistic reasoning I am sure that better durability can be made into a bad thing. Realistically speaking though most people prefer their discs to be more durable rather than less durable.
That's the point. What is fragile about discs that last for 20 years? The fragile disc is BD, and they fixed that. Now they are all durable.
The entire argument is ridiculous. Sony creates something that can't exist in the real world, they fix it because they have too, and then claim that discs that you can run over with a car and they still play are fragile. Orwell was right.

Come on Slim are you really going to suggest that you would prefer more fragile discs? Personally I love the better durability of Blu-ray though with sophistic reasoning I am sure that better durability can be made into a bad thing. Realistically speaking though most people prefer their discs to be more durable rather than less durable.

Most people are used to the standard set by CDs years ago.

I actually had a CD that had a deep scratch from dropping the corner of a CD player on it.:eek: I thought it would never play again. But then someone told me to user Brasso on it and to rub as hard as I could. It actually fixed the disc!

Just my opinion but when you start having to use AACS mastering cost to make BD-25 look more expensive than HD DVD 30 that you are trying a bit to hard since for the vast, vast majority of Blu-ray/HD DVD movies sold AACS will be used.

BD25 is more expensive regardless in his example. It's just a *lot* more expensive when you factor in AACS. He's also specifically citing Indie's here, which might not care for AACS. Just my opinion, but you might want to actually read his posts so you can understand their context.


Not quite, after all Blu-ray has higher bandwidth and better durability so you also get more as well.

Talk has already told us that 15mbps is relatively high bandwidth -- this easily fits into HD DVD's maximum spec. If you use higher bandwidth, you're going to chew up that 25GB even *faster*. What does this mean? It means that the movie has to be shorter now.

As far as durability -- is this the final talking point? A cover layer that is *required* to protect the discs so that a carrier didn't need to be used? A cover layer that seems to impact capacity and yields?

Nope, I stand by my statement: With HD DVD, you get a lot more for less. :)

Come on Slim are you really going to suggest that you would prefer more fragile discs? Personally I love the better durability of Blu-ray though with sophistic reasoning I am sure that better durability can be made into a bad thing. Realistically speaking though most people prefer their discs to be more durable rather than less durable.

So you would prefer slightly more durable at the cost of yields and capacity? :confused:

It's pretty clear that DVD and CD have been fine durability wise. This is just another 'this one goes to 11' argument that the BDA is pushing. Of course, the best part is that this coating is *necessary* so that the discs can be handled normally. It's not really a feature, it's a necessity so as to avoid needing a carrier.

Talk has already told us that 15mbps is relatively high bandwidth -- this easily fits into HD DVD's maximum spec. If you use higher bandwidth, you're going to chew up that 25GB even *faster*. What does this mean? It means that the movie has to be shorter now.


And it's fairly well known that after 23-24mbs the return on the bitrate goes straight down with VC1 and AVC. Space is more important than bitrate here.

That's the point. What is fragile about discs that last for 20 years?I didn't know that HD DVD discs have been around for 20 years ;). Note that I am only referring to Blu-ray and HD DVD and not to any other optical formats.


The fragile disc is BD, and they fixed that. Now they are all durable.Last I checked Blu-ray is more durable than HD DVD and to me that is a nice advantage of Blu-ray.


Sony creates something that can't exist in the real world, they fix it because they have too, and then claim that discs that you can run over with a car and they still play are fragile. Orwell was right.I think you are proving Orwell right with that kind of sophistic reasoning and how many times have you actually run over a HD DVD disc with a car? In fact what kind of person would test the durability of discs with such a subjective and unusual method?

I didn't know that HD DVD discs have been around for 20 years ;). Note that I am only referring to Blu-ray and HD DVD and not to any other optical formats.

Well, of course we should ignore the 20 year history of optical discs that are just like HD DVD discs. If we aren't having a dialog, you can monologue without me.

Last I checked Blu-ray is more durable than HD DVD and to me that is a nice advantage of Blu-ray.Depends on what you do with them. BD can stand up to scratches better than HD, although, if your HD gets a scratch you have a better chance of polishing it out than a BD.
Where BD falls down is flexibility. I bent a BD slightly, and the topcoat cracked and started peeling off, rendering the disc unplayable. I bent an HD DVD more than that, and it played just fine. Note that this isn't an unusual happening, All I was doing was removing the disc from a particularly unfriendly case that was badly designed.

Just my opinion, but you might want to actually read his posts so you can understand their context.jdg345, I didn't disagree with his low run production example I disagreed with using AACS cost to make a difference between between the two HD formats since for the vast majority of discs sold AACS would be used. Understand that I can disagree with one thing a poster said without disagreeing with everything he said.


If you use higher bandwidth, you're going to chew up that 25GB even *faster*.Because of how variable bit rate works allowing for higher peak bitrates doesn't affect average bit rate as much as constant bit rate would.


As far as durability -- is this the final talking point?jdg345, maybe one day you will understand that there are advantages for both HD formats. Of course you prefer to call the advantages of Blu-ray "talking points" since you don't want to admit that they are advantages.


Well, of course we should ignore the 20 year history of optical discs that are just like HD DVD discs. If we aren't having a dialog, you can monologue without me.HD DVD and CD are fairly different and just because something is an optical format doesn't mean it has the same level of durability as other optical formats.

Depends on what you do with them. BD can stand up to scratches better than HD, although, if your HD gets a scratch you have a better chance of polishing it out than a BD.
Where BD falls down is flexibility. I bent a BD slightly, and the topcoat cracked and started peeling off, rendering the disc unplayable. I bent an HD DVD more than that, and it played just fine. Note that this isn't an unusual happening, All I was doing was removing the disc from a particularly unfriendly case that was badly designed.Never had anything like that happen to me with Blu-ray before but to be fair I have never seen any testing done on flexibility in regards to Blu-ray and HD DVD discs. Note that certain HD DVD insiders used to make some rather dire statements about temperature change and Blu-ray discs that proved to be nothing more than hot air and from my own experiences Blu-ray has been more durable than DVD. I am though willing to consider any evidence you have that Blu-ray discs are less flexible than HD DVD discs since that is a possibility.

jdg345, I didn't disagree with his low run production example I disagreed with using AACS cost to make a difference between between the two HD formats since for the vast majority of discs sold AACS would be used. Understand that I can disagree with one thing a poster said without disagreeing with everything he said.

Even without AACS, BD25 is still more expensive in those production runs.


Because of how variable bit rate works allowing for higher peak bitrates doesn't affect average bit rate as much as constant bit rate would.


And the more peaks you have, the higher your average goes, no?


jdg345, maybe one day you will understand that there are advantages for both HD formats. Of course you prefer to call the advantages of Blu-ray "talking points" since you don't want to admit that they are advantages.


The coating was more of a necessity. The BDA came up with something that didn't stand up to real world use, so they came up with this coating that adds cost, adds complexity, reduces yields, and impacts maximum capacity per layer. They had to do all this to make it usable. But if you want to see it as an advantage, you go right ahead. ;)


HD DVD and CD are fairly different and just because something is an optical format doesn't mean it has the same level of durability as other optical formats.

HD DVD and CD (and more DVD) follow a similar production and manufacturing path.

Put another way: Do you feel that HD DVD is more delicate, more durable, or the same as compared to DVD?

impacts maximum capacity per layer.

How much does the hard coat impact max capacity?

How much does the hard coat impact max capacity?

Based on previous posts, I believe it was about 10 - 12%.

Based on previous posts, I believe it was about 10 - 12%.

Perhaps initially but I believe it was stated their are now many Blu-ray titles that use very close to 50GB.

I didn't know that HD DVD discs have been around for 20 years ;). Note that I am only referring to Blu-ray and HD DVD and not to any other optical formats.
...


Richard... forum threads are like conversations. It's therefore assumed that the other person won't ignore the context of a post you made a couple of volleys back.

Hence I hate LOVE it when Slim makes this comment just a little earlier today...

There's that thing again. What do you mean by "better". I have CDs that I have had for 20 years and DVDs that I have had for 10.

...and then you make a comment like yours above... as if he hadn't ALREADY addressed what your retort was about.

But of course you added a winky, so it wasn't rude to do so, as you so often seem to have trouble with others being to you.

Odd.

Because of how variable bit rate works allowing for higher peak bitrates doesn't affect average bit rate as much as constant bit rate would.




He wasn't demonstrating a lack of understanding of VBR. And your qualifier of "much" doesn't make his point less valid.

Furthermore, a widely held criticism has been for AVERAGE bitrate on HD DVDs (the Batman debates, anyone?). That makes his contention even more germane.

Talk has already told us that 15mbps is relatively high bandwidthPlease stop repeating this quote in your posts. I was picking a number for the sake of some capacity / bandwidth arguments. I don't do compression (other than for home use) so I'm not in an authoritative position to declare when/whether 15mbps is sufficient bandwidth for a given title.

And 4 cents is what dug the Studio's in and allowed a strike of the writer's guild, no? 4 cents seems like a pretty big deal. Especially when they can get more capacity for less money. ;)

You're still just using this one indie qoute to reference off of, and I've proven that the gap has narrowed down to nothing with your indie.

Did you forget Pro Action was cheaper for the Blu 25?

You have to leave off copy protection to make it look like the hd disc is cheaper still? Who's putting out unproteced discs? I thought the whole point of you bringing this up was to get a gauge of how much the majors pay since we cant look at their costs?

C'mon. The hd30 is NOT signifigantly cheaper.

I did talk to my other indie rep and although they dont want to advertise pricing qoutes, She did comment that the blu ray 30s and hd25s were neck in neck in cost. She said yeilds for them were by her standards kinda bad for both(compared to dvd?) but still passable where they could use their normal over/underuns pricing. (you get up to 10 percent overs at reorder price.Underuns get discounted at full price. So they have their estimates down pat. Both are sourced out.

If you want to steer your complaints about blu replication towards the bd50 it will give you a talking point more founded in reality.

But of course since the tl51 isnt out yet,and we dont know how that will go for sure, its kinda hard to compare apples to apples at this juncture.

Even without AACS, BD25 is still more expensive in those production runs.For very small production runs that might be true though I think both HD formats are hoping to get into production runs of hundreds of thousands instead of mere thousands. Neither HD format wants to be the next Laserdisc though I think this format war has done much to increase the odds of that happening.


And the more peaks you have, the higher your average goes, no?That does that change the fact that you can use the higher bandwidth of Blu-ray with a BD-25 disc.


They had to do all this to make it usable.The fact that something had to be done does not make it any less of a benefit to me.


HD DVD and CD (and more DVD) follow a similar production and manufacturing path.Would you care to explain in detail than what you mean by that and how exactly that relates to durability between CD and HD DVD?


Put another way: Do you feel that HD DVD is more delicate, more durable, or the same as compared to DVD?I have heard from a few posters that it is a bit less durable than DVD but I have seen no objective testing of HD DVD discs that would confirm or deny that.


Richard... forum threads are like conversations. It's therefore assumed that the other person won't ignore the context of a post you made a couple of volleys back.
...
But of course you added a winky, so it wasn't rude to do so, as you so often seem to have trouble with others being to you.scaesare, I asked about HD DVD and got a response about CD and how they had been around for 20 years so I joked about it since it didn't have anything to do with what I said. Seems to me that you are fine with jokes from HD DVD supporters but you are quick to offend when Blu-ray supporters make even the most benign of jokes.

...

scaesare, I asked about HD DVD and got a response about CD and how they had been around for 20 years so I joked about it since it didn't have anything to do with what I said. Seems to me that you are fine with jokes from HD DVD supporters but you are quick to offend when Blu-ray supporters make even the most benign of jokes.

Really? Your question to which he was responding was:

Come on Slim are you really going to suggest that you would prefer more fragile discs? Personally I love the better durability of Blu-ray though with sophistic reasoning I am sure that better durability can be made into a bad thing. Realistically speaking though most people prefer their discs to be more durable rather than less durable.

You simply used the term "discs" after he introduced AND qualified which discs he was referring to for which time frame.

So, can you please show me where you "asked about HD DVD " after he introduced both types of "discs"?

Lacking such, I'll say I understand Slim Goodbooty's point, and I think it's a valid one: CD and DVD share a similar optical manufacturing base and they have a significant track record to determine longevity.

How much does the hard coat impact max capacity?
It varies greatly depending on who you ask, and which format that person prefers. :rolleyes:

The real answer is the hard coat does not impact max capacity one bit. If you want to get into debate with someone about theories and possibilities (and I know there are a lot here willing to argue this forever), it's about what yields can be achieved at certain capacities.

Please stop repeating this quote in your posts. I was picking a number for the sake of some capacity / bandwidth arguments. I don't do compression (other than for home use) so I'm not in an authoritative position to declare when/whether 15mbps is sufficient bandwidth for a given title.

Talk, I believe your number is completely reasonable and accurate for AVC and VC1. I've seen content encoded at rates below this number with VC1 that looked outstanding. In addition, Don Eklund was saying at the launch of Blu-Ray that Sony pictures was typically encoding at about 18mbps with Mpeg2.

It varies greatly depending on who you ask, and which format that person prefers. :rolleyes:

The real answer is the hard coat does not impact max capacity one bit. If you want to get into debate with someone about theories and possibilities (and I know there are a lot here willing to argue this forever), it's about what yields can be achieved at certain capacities.

Well said. It's not that you can't produce discs with greater capacity, it simply lowers the yield rate at those higher capacities.

That's assuming this is still an issue. This was reported on a few months ago. It's possible that they have ironed this out by now.

You're still just using this one indie qoute to reference off of, and I've proven that the gap has narrowed down to nothing with your indie.

Did you forget Pro Action was cheaper for the Blu 25?

You have to leave off copy protection to make it look like the hd disc is cheaper still? Who's putting out unproteced discs? I thought the whole point of you bringing this up was to get a gauge of how much the majors pay since we cant look at their costs?

C'mon. The hd30 is NOT signifigantly cheaper.

I did talk to my other indie rep and although they dont want to advertise pricing qoutes, She did comment that the blu ray 30s and hd25s were neck in neck in cost. She said yeilds for them were by her standards kinda bad for both(compared to dvd?) but still passable where they could use their normal over/underuns pricing. (you get up to 10 percent overs at reorder price.Underuns get discounted at full price. So they have their estimates down pat. Both are sourced out.

If you want to steer your complaints about blu replication towards the bd50 it will give you a talking point more founded in reality.

But of course since the tl51 isnt out yet,and we dont know how that will go for sure, its kinda hard to compare apples to apples at this juncture.

The only actual pricing I've seen is Pacific Disc, but I'll take your word for it on the other two indies.

I missed the fact that this was being used as a gauge on what the majors pay. I don't know that there's any way to gauge that since there's been speculation that Sony DADC is absorbing the cost and yield challenges of Blu-Ray.

Since all three of these indies are outsourcing their Blu-Ray production (likely to Sony DADC), wouldn't it also be in Sony's interest to provide them with agressive pricing for BD-25 that is in line or even slightly less than what they can produce their own HD DVD 30s at?

Until an indie is running not only their own HD DVD line (as Pacific Disc is), but also their own BD line, I don't think we'll really know what the cost difference is.

You have to leave off copy protection to make it look like the hd disc is cheaper still? Who's putting out unproteced discs?
Apparently RBFilms (on HD DVD, at least, since AACS is required on BDs.)
We are forced to use AACS for BD but have the option with HD-DVD. You may notice that we do NOT use AACS on any of our HD-DVD releases nor do we plan to in the future.

Link. (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10058863#post10058863)

Also, to answer you other question .... I never use AACS if I do not have to and none of my HD-DVD Releases use AACS. Same thing with my standard DVD. I never use CSS or Macrovision. I have found in the past that none of these technologies deter the serious bootlegger. Besides, in the early days, many of these technologies caused problems with DVD playback on certain types of equipment...especially PC's.

Link. (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=11010647#post11010647)

It does somewhat annoy me that AACS (and its fee) is mandatory on BD. They should change that.

- Tom

It is to my understanding that Sony had a choice - go with a caddy or go with the coating. They picked the coating.

As far as durability - the HD DVD is the same physical structure of a DVD .6mm from the surface while BD is .1mm.

Just incase everyone has forgotten how DVD's and HD DVD's are "layered up" . . .

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x66/LeeAStewart/duallayer-disc.jpg

Perhaps initially but I believe it was stated their are now many Blu-ray titles that use very close to 50GB.

They can get close to 50GB, their yields just suffer greatly. While this is probably okay in low production runs, I imagine it's not so okay if they're planning on stamping a few million.

You're still just using this one indie qoute to reference off of, and I've proven that the gap has narrowed down to nothing with your indie.

Did you forget Pro Action was cheaper for the Blu 25?

You have to leave off copy protection to make it look like the hd disc is cheaper still? Who's putting out unproteced discs? I thought the whole point of you bringing this up was to get a gauge of how much the majors pay since we cant look at their costs?

C'mon. The hd30 is NOT signifigantly cheaper.

I did talk to my other indie rep and although they dont want to advertise pricing qoutes, She did comment that the blu ray 30s and hd25s were neck in neck in cost. She said yeilds for them were by her standards kinda bad for both(compared to dvd?) but still passable where they could use their normal over/underuns pricing. (you get up to 10 percent overs at reorder price.Underuns get discounted at full price. So they have their estimates down pat. Both are sourced out.

If you want to steer your complaints about blu replication towards the bd50 it will give you a talking point more founded in reality.

But of course since the tl51 isnt out yet,and we dont know how that will go for sure, its kinda hard to compare apples to apples at this juncture.

You haven't answered this point yet I dont think, so I'll ask again. My apologies if you address this already:

Are the manufacturing houses you are contacting replicating their own discs, or are they outsourcing them?

They can get close to 50GB, their yields just suffer greatly. While this is probably okay in low production runs, I imagine it's not so okay if they're planning on stamping a few million.

How greatly?

For very small production runs that might be true though I think both HD formats are hoping to get into production runs of hundreds of thousands instead of mere thousands. Neither HD format wants to be the next Laserdisc though I think this format war has done much to increase the odds of that happening.


Again, context ... for someone who spends so much time arguing semantics, I just don't understand if you are being argumentative or if you just didn't read the post. He was specifically referring in his numbers to Indie replication which would be lower production runs.

Even at high runs, if costs were the same, you get 5GB more with HD DVD than you do with Blu-ray. Maybe even more depending on how much they are willing to let their yields suffer to approach 25GB on Blu-ray.


That does that change the fact that you can use the higher bandwidth of Blu-ray with a BD-25 disc.


Nor does it change the fact that if you use higher bandwidth, you eat into the capacity faster and now you are forced to handle shorter movies. Let's recap, paraphrasing for brevity:

I said: Higher bandwidth means that you eat into capacity faster limiting movie length.
You said: It allows for higher peaks, so you don't have to have higher avg.
I said: Simple math: higher peaks lead to higher averages.
Your last response: That doesn't change the fact that you can use the higher bandwidth of Blu-ray with a BD-25 disc.

We went in a complete circle. The fact is: Yes, you can use the higher bandwidth, but as soon as you do so, you have even *less* capacity with respect to a 30GB HD DVD. So how do you deal with longer films? You can't. So that takes away the bandwidth talking point.


The fact that something had to be done does not make it any less of a benefit to me.


Do you run your discs over with your car? Why is this such a benefit to you? Did you have major issues with DVD's being unplayable with your normal use?

I don't really see this is an advantage since DVD has been fine for 10 years or more. In fact, since it appears to cause yield issues at higher capacity, I'm thinking they see it more of a liability that they are trying to spin into a talking point. /shrug


Would you care to explain in detail than what you mean by that and how exactly that relates to durability between CD and HD DVD?


I mean that they follow the same manufacturing paths. I'll let someone else address this as I'm being bored with this back and forth with you all the time. This topic has been discussed at large.

EDIT: I see someone already did this.


I have heard from a few posters that it is a bit less durable than DVD but I have seen no objective testing of HD DVD discs that would confirm or deny that.


So, basically, other than a few posts from unnamed sources on a forum, it's highly likely that HD DVD discs are just as durable as DVD discs -- which have been fine for over a decade. Thanks.


scaesare, I asked about HD DVD and got a response about CD and how they had been around for 20 years so I joked about it since it didn't have anything to do with what I said. Seems to me that you are fine with jokes from HD DVD supporters but you are quick to offend when Blu-ray supporters make even the most benign of jokes.

Wow ... again, for someone so focussed on semantics, I just don't understand how you could miss his statement. He specifically stated CD's for 20 years and DVD's for 10. It's there. He wrote it all out. :rolleyes:

It varies greatly depending on who you ask, and which format that person prefers. :rolleyes:

The real answer is the hard coat does not impact max capacity one bit. If you want to get into debate with someone about theories and possibilities (and I know there are a lot here willing to argue this forever), it's about what yields can be achieved at certain capacities.

Correct; I should have been more clear in my statement.

The closer they get to maximum capacity of the disc, the more it negatively effects yields. IOW: The more 'full' they get, the less 'good discs' they end up with.

It's not to say they can't produce 50GB discs, it's just that when they do, they end up with more throw aways.

How greatly?

Numbers on this vary ... It seems to relate to how close you get to capacity. Basically, the closer you get to filling up the disc, the lower the yields get (ie: the more they are negative affected). My understanding from what Dave posted awhile back was that as soon as you get within 10-12% of max capacity, yields fall 'precipitously'.

Dave: If I'm misquoting, please let me know so I can edit/fix this post.

Numbers on this vary ... It seems to relate to how close you get to capacity. Basically, the closer you get to filling up the disc, the lower the yields get (ie: the more they are negative affected). My understanding from what Dave posted awhile back was that as soon as you get within 10-12% of max capacity, yields fall 'precipitously'.

Dave: If I'm misquoting, please let me know so I can edit/fix this post.

So we don't know how much capacity or how much yields drop?

Numbers on this vary ... It seems to relate to how close you get to capacity. Basically, the closer you get to filling up the disc, the lower the yields get (ie: the more they are negative affected). My understanding from what Dave posted awhile back was that as soon as you get within 10-12% of max capacity, yields fall 'precipitously'.

Dave: If I'm misquoting, please let me know so I can edit/fix this post.


You are correct. GB allocation is one of the factors in disc yields on BD due to the spin coating. You can get close to 50GB and 25 GB on a single layer, but you risk lower yields by doing this. (from what I've been told).

(I know this isn't the correct thread for this, but if everyone else can drone on for two pages, why can't I?) :)

I've played probably 60 or 70 HD DVDs through my systems (A1 and A2) and about 20 through my PS3. With my HDs, I am lucky to get through a movie without a hiccup or freeze. I haven't had a single freeze with any BD to date. This is both with purchased (and delicately handled) discs and with beat up rentals. Now, whether the problem is with the discs themselves or with the players erroring, I really don't care... from what I have seen and experienced, BD 'feels' more mature as a technology, despite the profile fiasco, etc.

As far as the BD coating, it doesn't matter to me WHY it's there - they could have put it there as a optical-lens-focuser-thing that was needed due to the difference in BD - it's there, and to the end user (me) it's an advantage.

Based on previous posts, I believe it was about 10 - 12%.

I thought it was that yields started to really drop off when they approached 10-12% of capacity remaining?

Please stop repeating this quote in your posts. I was picking a number for the sake of some capacity / bandwidth arguments. I don't do compression (other than for home use) so I'm not in an authoritative position to declare when/whether 15mbps is sufficient bandwidth for a given title.

Talk, with all due respect, you used these numbers in one of your responses with regards to Fake PiP. I understand you might not be able to comment on a given title, but it looked like you were saying that it would be fine for *most* titles. Would that be a correct interpretation?

FYI, here's the post in question:
No. Take a typical two hour movie @ 15Mbps average (a reasonably high rate), which requires 13.5GB. Assume 1/4 of the commentary has useful video to go with it, that brings you to just under 17GB. Still gives you plenty of room for the rest even before you go to 50GB disc.

Depends on how it's authored. With seamless branching you can allow it to be turned on and off at will (not instanteously, but within a short amount of time) and without jumping out to the menu. And, incidentally, the original Warner PiP on HD DVD required you to go to the menu to turn it off. It's all in the authoring.

So we don't know how much capacity or how much yields drop?

It seems that if you get near 10-12% of total capacity remaining ... so it would be about 22GB and 44GB maximum (BD25 and BD50 respecitvely) before yields 'drop precipitously'. I don't know exactly how far yields drop, but considering it was described as precipitous, I'm thinking yields drop in pretty big chunks as you approach maximum capacity.

For what it's worth, there's a logical reason for this: Centrifugal Force. When the cover layer is applied, it is applied as a spin coating. The spinning motion of the disc causes excess to 'pool' at the outter edges of the disc. This slightly thicker coat affects the laser focus tolerances which are already pretty tight.

It would be a logical assumption that the yield son the BD-50 with near 100% capacity increase over time. The manufacturing techniques would improve. Manufacturers learn from the process an improve it.

It would be a logical assumption that the yield son the BD-50 with near 100% capacity increase over time. The manufacturing techniques would improve. Manufacturers learn from the process an improve it.

I guess it would be ... but truth is sometimes stranger than fiction. Take, for example, the Sony Press Releases on Yields that were roughly a year apart.

In the first one, they said yields were essentially X%.

Then, a year later, they tell us that yields have really improved and are now at Y%.

The best part? Y was actually a lower number ... so in their year of improvements, yields were actually not as good as what they were previously stated to be.

Interestingly, the second announcement came out during the whole yield discussions here on the Insider's thread. Maybe they're watching. ;)

There was a whole article about this awhile back, but I'm not sure if it's okay to post the link under the new rules.

Of course, the other issue is that they're selling 50GB today ... and if it's not feasible, they shouldn't be selling it that way. Just like they have been selling Internet Functionality and IME/PiP for a year and Profile 1.1 players are only now becoming available -- and no Profile 2.0 players exist.

I think that's one of the largest issues folks have with the BDA: They constantly say that they can do it, and that they have all this potential. You just need to wait for it. So why pay early adopter pricing for things that it can't do yet? :confused:

Did Laserdisc ever move beyond an enthusiast market? I consider it unlikely a single-vendor market could ever achieve anywhere near the success of DVD. Don't forget much of the innovation comes from the competition in suppliers. If HD DVD doesn't gain other vendors you're likely to see most of the component suppliers beyond Toshiba's core vendors stop investing in HD DVD R&D.
LD? No it didn't. As a matter of fact many of us - specifically me, believe HDM will be LD Part 2 - a niche market product. I know you don't feel this way so there is no reason to respond - we agree to disagree.

Toshiba seems to have a very good partner in HD DVD - NEC. Now they have 2 major components on the board - the SoC and the GPU. Soon they will be reduced to a single component - a "Super SoC." This again reduces the size of the board.

NEC is the other major patent holder in HD DVD.

TSS builds the drives for all HD DVD players - so who builds the drives for BD players?

Because it hasn't happened before in a mass market does not mean it won't. Oh wait a minute - didn't Sony dominate manufacturing for the Walkman?

Of course once the cost of the players gets to "throw away" levels - there is a whole pack of Chinese CEM's just waiting to get into the game. They do it now with DVD players.

Any more reasons why Toshiba can't go it alone?

Don't forget Pioneer more or less took the LD market in a homerun, and used to be *the* major LD player and software company over years. Kudos for them, by the way! What else: 90.000 LD titles have been pressed over 25years (>40.000 titles in Japan, and the US being the second largest market), a number which HD DVD and BD still have to reach.

If Toshiba manages to keep the player prices down and the studios see a constantly increasing software market, then I can see HD DVD staying alive and healthy over years, even it turns out that HDM remains a niche market.

Talk, with all due respect, you used these numbers in one of your responses with regards to Fake PiP. I understand you might not be able to comment on a given title, but it looked like you were saying that it would be fine for *most* titles. Would that be a correct interpretation?I'm saying that my using 15Mbps as a benchmark number shouldn't be used in the context of justifying it as appropriate for a given quality of video. I used it in a very specific context; let Ben or RBFilms or someone else more authoritative on this matter weigh in on what an appropriate "average high quality" bitrate is, and quote them in the future.

I'm saying that my using 15Mbps as a benchmark number shouldn't be used in the context of justifying it as appropriate for a given quality of video.
So to clear this up once and for all, do you or do you not think that a 15Mbps average is a reasonably high rate for a typical two hour movie?

Please stop repeating this quote in your posts. I was picking a number for the sake of some capacity / bandwidth arguments. I don't do compression (other than for home use) so I'm not in an authoritative position to declare when/whether 15mbps is sufficient bandwidth for a given title.

I'm saying that my using 15Mbps as a benchmark number shouldn't be used in the context of justifying it as appropriate for a given quality of video. I used it in a very specific context; let Ben or RBFilms or someone else more authoritative on this matter weigh in on what an appropriate "average high quality" bitrate is, and quote them in the future.

I think it is safe to say that Talkstr8t is admittedly not an authority on bandwidth requirements. His views on that topic are not based on any training, specific knowledge or insider info.

Now that he has acknowledged as much, perhaps he will simply refrain from discussing how bandwidth can impact picture quality.

So, can you please show me where you "asked about HD DVD " after he introduced both types of "discs"?Well considering we were talking about Blu-ray and HD DVD I thought it was rather clear I was comparing those two formats and despite some similarities between CD and HD DVD there are also similarities between CD and Blu-ray. Obviously though just because they all share some similarities does not mean they are all equally durable.


Maybe even more depending on how much they are willing to let their yields suffer to approach 25GB on Blu-ray.jdg345, just curious but what recent evidence do you have that yields are a problem with 25 GB Blu-ray discs? Are just to make this clear are you just going by what Dave Vaughn has heard from other unnamed people?


Nor does it change the fact that if you use higher bandwidth, you eat into the capacity faster and now you are forced to handle shorter movies.So are you claiming that a 2 to 2.5 hour movie on Blu-ray can not have AV peaks over 30 Mbps on a 25 GB Blu-ray disc? If not what exactly are you claiming since "forced to handle shorter movies" is a rather vague statement to make.


Did you have major issues with DVD's being unplayable with your normal use?Well I have had more playability issues with DVDs compared to Blu-ray discs which from my personal experiences has proven to be more durable. As such I consider durability to be an advantage of Blu-ray.

You haven't answered this point yet I dont think, so I'll ask again. My apologies if you address this already:

Are the manufacturing houses you are contacting replicating their own discs, or are they outsourcing them?

I did.
"Both are sourced out."

Sorry, I should have made that clearer.

I did.
"Both are sourced out."

Sorry, I should have made that clearer.

Sorry, I must have missed it in your post. Do you know how and to who they are sourced?

I'm hopeful someone that replicates their own HD DVD's and Blu-ray discs will chime in sometime soon ... but it appears that the massive investment for a Blu-ray line seems to be keeping many replicators on the sidelines.

Well considering we were talking about Blu-ray and HD DVD I thought it was rather clear I was comparing those two formats and despite some similarities between CD and HD DVD there are also similarities between CD and Blu-ray. Obviously though just because they all share some similarities does not mean they are all equally durable.


HD DVD and DVD share the same manufacturing processes so their durabilities are similar. Blu-ray is a completely different physical product. You're just playing on words here and arguing semantics so as not to appear 'wrong' imo.


jdg345, just curious but what recent evidence do you have that yields are a problem with 25 GB Blu-ray discs? Are just to make this clear are you just going by what Dave Vaughn has heard from other unnamed people?


Richard, just curious but what recent evidence do you have that yields are not a problem [all of a sudden] with 25GB Blu-ray discs? And just to make this clear, are you at least in agreement that yields are a problem with 50GB Blu-ray discs?

btw, I hope your little comment regarding Dave Vaughn was not some attempt to smear or discredit his contributions or information. He is an Insider here and is not required to name his sources last I checked. From what I have seen of your postings, you take what Blu-ray Insider's post as complete fact and never question their sources -- even though some of them have been quite wrong on details that you yourself have gone around trumpeting.

Again, I'm hopeful I misinterpretted your comment and you were not disrespecting Dave.


So are you claiming that a 2 to 2.5 hour movie on Blu-ray can not have AV peaks over 30 Mbps on a 25 GB Blu-ray disc? If not what exactly are you claiming since "forced to handle shorter movies" is a rather vague statement to make.


Wow. I am claiming that if you have higher peaks, you end up with a higher average bitrate. Assuming the same movie, a higher average bitrate is going to require a higher amount of capacity. So, what I'm saying is that if you take a movie that is 2 hours long and it is encoded with a higher average bitrate due to higher and more frequent peaks, then it is going to require more space than the same movie on HD DVD. Since BD25 is already at a capacity disadvantage to HD30 without factoring in yield concerns, that means that you will either have to limit yourself to shorter length movies or drop a bunch of extra content.

This bandwidth argument is a complete strawman. Real world examples have yet to show where higher bandwidth automatically means better PQ and AQ. So far, both formats have reference quality PQ and AQ. Besides, once you throw PCM in there along with several different language tracks and that bandwidth advantage disappears pretty quickly anyways.

In the end, the quality of the master is exponentially more important than any of this Bandwidth and Capacity nonsense.


Well I have had more playability issues with DVDs compared to Blu-ray discs which from my personal experiences has proven to be more durable. As such I consider durability to be an advantage of Blu-ray.

Right, you've made that clear. We're down to a hard coat being one of the last talking points.

Now ... can we move on? There is no need to derail this thread any further.

I believe consumers willing to spend $300-400 on a player are more willing to spend $25-30 on a title. As high-def title sales increase we might see unit prices drop, or we might see the greater adoption rate and exposure of high-def media make higher content prices acceptable. Regardless, it's certainly the case that selling a bunch of $99 players without a concomitant rise in software sales isn't going to be very encouraging to the studios.

I agree that those with more to spend are likely to spend more, but bear in mind that those who bought the $99 players already dropped $1K or more on a HDTV, so we aren't talking about people with little or no disposable income. I think the real format war is between the two HD formats and DVD. If there is no significant rise in software sales in the next few months it may well mean that the typical consumer (not the early adopters who frequent this forum) has looked at a few HD DVDs, compared them to the upscaled DVDs he already owns and decided the PQ/AQ/overall experience of HDM does not justify the premium cost. This does not bode well for the future of HD DVD, and it certainly doesn't bode well for BluRay as I doubt he will plop down another $500 for essentially the same result.

Well I'm a budget minded movie fan - I own very few DVDs. I just don't feel the need to own the disk. I revisit favorites maybe once a year at most and NetFlix can deliver those to me in 48 hours.

With that said, I've already bought 5 HD DVDs for my $99 A2. The experience is just so dramatically more satisfying than even HD satellite that I want to have some favorite discs around.

Anecdotal yes, but there it is.

(I know this isn't the correct thread for this, but if everyone else can drone on for two pages, why can't I?) :)

I've played probably 60 or 70 HD DVDs through my systems (A1 and A2) and about 20 through my PS3. With my HDs, I am lucky to get through a movie without a hiccup or freeze. I haven't had a single freeze with any BD to date. This is both with purchased (and delicately handled) discs and with beat up rentals. Now, whether the problem is with the discs themselves or with the players erroring, I really don't care... from what I have seen and experienced, BD 'feels' more mature as a technology, despite the profile fiasco, etc.

As far as the BD coating, it doesn't matter to me WHY it's there - they could have put it there as a optical-lens-focuser-thing that was needed due to the difference in BD - it's there, and to the end user (me) it's an advantage.

At this point I've played about 40 or so discs through my XA2. I've never had a hiccup or freeze. I rent from Netflix as well and those discs play perfectly too. I'm not sure why you're having issues. You mentioned that your rental discs are beat up. Who are you renting through?

I thought it was that yields started to really drop off when they approached 10-12% of capacity remaining?

That's what I meant to say. Sorry, I wasn't more clear.

At this point I've played about 40 or so discs through my XA2. I've never had a hiccup or freeze. I rent from Netflix as well and those discs play perfectly too. I'm not sure why you're having issues. You mentioned that your rental discs are beat up. Who are you renting through?

I've had an A1 and an A2. I've had one disc (KK) that seemed to hang indefinitely when accessing an interactive menu. A firmware update fixed that.

I had another disc (Transformers) that gave a hex error code when it tried to return to the menu after downloading the updated web features. Restarting the disc without problems.

Both of those issues appear to be hiccups related to the interactivity layer. I've had virtually no issues I can recall that I attribute to the optical subsystem. That's out of a sample size of probably 100 discs, which probably >50% were HD DVD's.

I've had one disc out of over 400 that had an issue, but I couldn't repeat it!

David:

Any answer on the recycling question?

Lee,

I completely forgot to reply, but I heard back from one of my two sources on this and he is 99% sure that the BD discs can't be reused with production discs because of the coating.

David

Lee,

I completely forgot to reply, but I heard back from one of my two sources on this and he is 99% sure that the BD discs can't be reused with production discs because of the coating.

David

Thanks David - as I thought. So BD can't even recoup the raw materials from rejects like HD can. I know they do it with DVD's. Spoke with someone who worked at a plant for 5 years. They have a special machine that grinds up the discs. Then they add a certain % to the untouched raw material so all it costs them is machine time for each reject and the labor to recycle.

Thanks David - as I thought. So BD can't even recoup the raw materials from rejects like HD can. I know they do it with DVD's. Spoke with someone who worked at a plant for 5 years. They have a special machine that grinds up the discs. Then they add a certain % to the untouched raw material so all it costs them is machine time for each reject and the labor to recycle.

So HD DVD is more environmentally friendly? ;)

So HD DVD is more environmentally friendly? ;)

I guess that's one reason 'Green Ray' never made it as final name candidate ... ;)

He is an Insider here and is not required to name his sources last I checked.Note that I am not saying that what Dave heard is wrong I am simply asking for additional evidence and to make sure that this is a current issue and not a past issue.


Again, I'm hopeful I misinterpretted your comment and you were not disrespecting Dave.Last I checked asking for additional evidence about something is not disrespecting someone and is pretty common in a technical forum.


And, the majority of releases are still on BD25.The majority of Blu-ray releases in 2007 were on BD-50 so it is being used a lot more than it was in 2006. Just a guess but I think that trend will continue into 2008.


Now, if you'd like to continue this, I'd suggest we take it to PM.Sure, if you have any interest just PM your responses to me and I will be happy to continue this by PM.

Richard,

My information comes from independent replicators. One is making a lot more of them than they used to, but yields aren't stellar. They have ranged from the mid-50's to as high at 80%, but on average they are in the high 60's now. Yield rates also vary depending on how many discs are made and how many GB's are on the disc. The good news is that the more discs that are made, the higher the yields go up. The opposite is true with the lower production runs. There is an issue with the first few thousand discs coming out manufacturing that hasn't been fixed yet. If this could be fixed, then I have been told that yields could approach 80% consistently.

That being said, 80% isn't good in comparison to DVD, which is in the high 90's. HD DVD is in the high 90's as well and I have been told that combo's are in the low 90's.

I hope that yields increase on the BD50's though for us, consumers. Because if they do, then we won't be paying extra for HDM when and if it ever becomes more mainstream. Sony is still making the lions share of BD50's with one other independent making the majority of the rest. That is fine for right now this early in the game, but if multiple hundreds of thousands of discs start to fly off the shelf then more manufacturing capability needs to come online.

Dave,

Any chance they'll tell you the cycle times for BD50/HD30/HD30combo? I'd think that's as much of a concern as yields, no?

Thanks,
Robert.

From the Insiders Q&A Thread:

According to Hollywood Reporter bluray won the week ending 11/25 73:27. Is this true?
You have been accurate for the past two weeks, so I thought Id ask you again!

DVDs see green on Black Friday as part of retail gains (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i8d5ddf2904a0aae38936c0078ef4de4a)

What I don't understand is what Nielsen does about Wal-Mart, which according to the article accounts for 40% of DVD sales. Do they estimate the sales from Wal-Mart? Because that's a large amount of sales to just ignore. Isn't it possible that HD DVD is doing better there than at other retailers?

And yes I'm aware that this applies to Blu-ray as well, just that with HD DVD being pushed more at Wal-Mart than other retailers, I assume it does better there.

From the Insiders Q&A Thread:


DVDs see green on Black Friday as part of retail gains (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i8d5ddf2904a0aae38936c0078ef4de4a)

What I don't understand is what Nielsen does about Wal-Mart, which according to the article accounts for 40% of DVD sales. Do they estimate the sales from Wal-Mart? Because that's a large amount of sales to just ignore. Isn't it possible that HD DVD is doing better there than at other retailers?

And yes I'm aware that this applies to Blu-ray as well, just that with HD DVD being pushed more at Wal-Mart than other retailers, I assume it does better there.

We'll never know unless someone on the inside wants to leak numbers, or Wallyworld does an about face in releasing the numbers.

Do we have an Insider from Universal?

It is to my understanding that they ignore Wal-Mart's sales in their reports.

What about Amazon? I thought I read that they were not in the 3 day First Alert numbers, but were in the 10 day numbers.

It is to my understanding that they ignore Wal-Mart's sales in their reports.

It isn't that they "ignore" Wal-Mart sales, it is the fact that Wal-Mart does not release the information.

It isn't that they "ignore" Wal-Mart sales, it is the fact that Wal-Mart does not release the information.

Many here have stated that they estimate WM's sales - they don't - at least with HDM. They just do without.;)

What about Amazon? I thought I read that they were not in the 3 day First Alert numbers, but were in the 10 day numbers.
They are in neither. Wal-Mart does not release any sales data to third party aggregaters. They do however give all vendors virtually up to the minute sales and inventory data by SKU, so each studio knows exactly what it has sold by each individual item on a daily basis.

Amazon is a reported Nielsen retailer, but it also gives vendors precise real time sales and inventory data.

From the Insiders Q&A Thread:


DVDs see green on Black Friday as part of retail gains (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i8d5ddf2904a0aae38936c0078ef4de4a)

What I don't understand is what Nielsen does about Wal-Mart, which according to the article accounts for 40% of DVD sales. Do they estimate the sales from Wal-Mart? Because that's a large amount of sales to just ignore. Isn't it possible that HD DVD is doing better there than at other retailers?

And yes I'm aware that this applies to Blu-ray as well, just that with HD DVD being pushed more at Wal-Mart than other retailers, I assume it does better there. Nielsen/Videoscan exists for a number of reasons, but one of them is to give studios feedback on what they cannot easily get for themselves. The studios can take that and add in their known numbers from Wal-Mart sales to get a combined figure.

Some major retailers like Amazon and Wal-Mart have advanced vendor information sales and logistics information systems .

Nielsen/Videoscan specifically does not try to project its missing sales, it just states what its census of retailers in its capture net report. Everybody in the industry knows it does not capture Wal-Mart, and the first alert numbers do not include thing like sales to rental companies. But the studios know.

The studios know exactly what is sold at Wal-Mart even faster than they can get info from Nielsen/Videoscan and they can choose to share that with whoever they want.

So it's possible that a good deal of HD DVD sales are going unreported?

I mean, since Wal-Mart isn't included in the sales, that would mean any disc sold during the $98 player sale went unreported.

Additionally, this makes Paramount's declaration that it sold 190,000 Transformers discs (even though Nielsen Videoscan showed it sold less) more plausible (same holds true for Warner's release that stated 250,000 copies of 300 were sold through in the first week even though Nielsen showed nearly 100,000 less).

I suppose it's good to have some sort of measurement, but I wish Nielsen would at least estimate the remaining sales (and note that in their reports).

So it's possible that a good deal of HD DVD sales are going unreported?

If statistics mean anything, then I would say that Walmart is seeing similar sales numbers that we are seeing in the VS numbers. The only time that I think this is different is when a promotion is going on. For example, the weekend of the $98 players, I bet they sold more HD DVD titles than the VS numbers reported, but the same holds true for this past Friday and the PS3 sale with the 10 BD titles. I bet HD DVD got trounced at Wal-mart on Black Friday.

I didn't want to make it seem like only HD DVD is going under reported, because Blu-ray is as well. You're right about that.

Just stating that Wal-Mart has pushed HD DVD a bit more than Blu-ray, and in regards to HD DVD exclusive releases, and special time periods (like the $98 sale) numbers could be a bit higher than what's been reported.

Wal-mart gave 10 "free" BD discs with PS3 purchases last Friday....this will be a huge number even if there were only 10 PS3's available per outlet!

If statistics mean anything, then I would say that Walmart is seeing similar sales numbers that we are seeing in the VS numbers. The only time that I think this is different is when a promotion is going on. For example, the weekend of the $98 players, I bet they sold more HD DVD titles than the VS numbers reported, but the same holds true for this past Friday and the PS3 sale with the 10 BD titles. I bet HD DVD got trounced at Wal-mart on Black Friday. Except that a lot more HD DVD players were sold at Wal-Mart recently than Blu-ray players, so there likely will be a HD DVD lean for Wal-Mart sales when those new owners start buying discs. The extra PS3 sales balance somethings out but the new set top owners tha just shopped at Wal-Mart still lean recently HD DVD.

Anecdotally, I know that my local (middle of the Wal-Mart family in sales) Wal-Mart Supercenter displayed and sold a lot more HD DVD recently than it ever did before since the $98.97 sale.

Statistics are funny though in the way things tend to equal the trend that is set in other places. I'm sure there are pockets here and there that will show up differently, but I think that overall software sales are consistently 61:39 SI, regardless of the outlet that is tracked.

Wal-mart gave 10 "free" BD discs with PS3 purchases last Friday....this will be a huge number even if there were only 10 PS3's available per outlet! Yep, an the studios will calculate how that promotion really reflects the potential future sales of the hardware units sold. So will Wal-Mart and other retailers.

HDM may hit a new milestone by 12/31. It may be the first format in history that after 20 months SI - has given away more free discs then have actually been sold.:o

I believe consumers willing to spend $300-400 on a player are more willing to spend $25-30 on a title. Your assertion is completely disproven by the movie attach rate on the PS3.

As high-def title sales increase we might see unit prices drop, or we might see the greater adoption rate and exposure of high-def media make higher content prices acceptable. Regardless, it's certainly the case that selling a bunch of $99 players without a concomitant rise in software sales isn't going to be very encouraging to the studios.
You do understand that software sales do not rise immediately and dramatically after hardware sales in November and December? I'm sure the studios do. Holiday gift giving and all...IIRC the same happened after the PS3 launched in Nov. '06. It took a couple of months for software sales to rise.

Your assertion is completely disproven by the movie attach rate on the PS3. How? Every time the PS3 has had some bump, starting with it's release, there's been a jump in BD sales.
You do understand that software sales do not rise immediately and dramatically after hardware sales in November and December? I'm sure the studios do. Holiday gift giving and all...IIRC the same happened after the PS3 launched in Nov. '06. It took a couple of months for software sales to rise.Are you talking about in December in January? If it's the former, you're quite wrong. There was a large jump in software in December last year for HDM (30k BD, 15k HD DVD), with a fall in the weeks following. This was following both the PS3 and the 360 addon.

From the Insiders Q&A Thread:


DVDs see green on Black Friday as part of retail gains (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i8d5ddf2904a0aae38936c0078ef4de4a)

What I don't understand is what Nielsen does about Wal-Mart, which according to the article accounts for 40% of DVD sales. Do they estimate the sales from Wal-Mart? Because that's a large amount of sales to just ignore. Isn't it possible that HD DVD is doing better there than at other retailers?

And yes I'm aware that this applies to Blu-ray as well, just that with HD DVD being pushed more at Wal-Mart than other retailers, I assume it does better there.

No, Wal Mart moves massive amounts of standard dvd because its one of the cheapest places to get dvd. They always have a big "bargain" section and now I see they even have a $299 section...I saw 'Syriana" in that.

I hope noone would assume that it would hold 40% of the hdm market. Their selection is awful and not much yet in the way of dscounts. My local walmarts are stocking 2:! blu and their selection is still limited.

Like what was said, Wal Mart doesnt report its data with neilsen. And we have no idea what's going on there. But if someone can speculate that hd dvd is doing better there, I can speculate this:

The HD DVD players sold there, those adopters arent buying a lot of $30 discs.They are buying dvds out of the bargain racks for $13.99,$7.99 etc.
I can bet the attach rates right now on those $98 players are awful.

Since the wal marts I've seen stock more blu than hd dvd, I can only assume they are selling more blu. Theres alot of ps3 action at walmart. And seeing that a new game is about $55...a $25 disc is an appealing gift for little johnny or his dad who are getting a ps3 for xmas. My bet is that wal mart's paltry HDM sales data would swing neilsens further to blu's side and do more damge to hd dvds cause if they were to share with neilsen.

Be careful what you wish for.

How? Every time the PS3 has had some bump, starting with it's release, there's been a jump in BD sales. Talk says that people who spend more for a player are more likely to buy higher priced software. I disagreed with his assertion...and I still do.

Are you talking about in December in January? If it's the former, you're quite wrong. There was a large jump in software in December last year for HDM (30k BD, 15k HD DVD), with a fall in the weeks following. This was following both the PS3 and the 360 addon.You say I am wrong, and then fail to prove why. :confused:

30K, 15K is not a "large jump". 687K PS3s were sold by December 31 in the US. Yet blu-ray software sales did not overtake HD DVD until February 23rd. That is my point - many PS3s (and now, HD-A3s) were bought as holiday gifts.

Blu-ray surpasses HD DVD in disc sales for the first time. Posted Feb 23rd 2007 (http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/02/23/blu-ray-surpasses-hd-dvd-in-disc-sales-for-the-first-time/)

Anyways, sales related talk will all be deleted, so I will stop.

Statistics are funny though in the way things tend to equal the trend that is set in other places. I'm sure there are pockets here and there that will show up differently, but I think that overall software sales are consistently 61:39 SI, regardless of the outlet that is tracked.

Not to be a smart-@$$ (I'm not trying, it just comes naturally to me), but as someone who works fairly regularly with statistical analysis (around pricing and volume of commodity purchases) I'd like to suggest that perhaps the relationship you're alluding to (i.e., that the Wal-Mart data is similar to the data at large) may not be quite consistent. In QA there is this thing called "selection bias" (or more accurately "sampling bias"). Sampling bias is created when the data set being sampled (or in this case, not being sampled) is somehow inherently different than other possible data sets or samples. As an example, if you performed a survey at a pricey ski resort, it is unlikely that the data you got back would be applicable to the population at large, because the location you chose to sample from had an inherent bias (towards higher income levels which is correlated with all sorts of other interesting attributes like education level, ethnicity, political views, etc.). So, for the case at hand, there may be some sample bias inherent in Wal-Mart data (just speculating, I don't actually know, one would have to see that data). I don't think that it is too far of stretch, however, to see that Wal-Mart attracts certain types of shoppers/buyers (ones who are typically interested in certain types of purchases and price points), and that Wal-Mart has some vested interest in the format "conflict" and may actually be favoring HD DVD. As such, it would not surprise me in the least if the HD media sales data from Wal-Mart was not just slightly different, but drastically different than Nielsen as a whole.

Just my two cents.

Talk says that people who spend more for a player are more likely to buy higher priced software. I disagreed with his assertion...and I still do.Well, good for you. Just because you disagree doesn't mean you're right.
You say I am wrong, and then fail to prove why. :confused:Well, there's plenty of evidence elsewhere,
30K, 15K is not a "large jump". 687K PS3s were sold by December 31 in the US. Yet blu-ray software sales did not overtake HD DVD until February 23rd. That is my point - many PS3s (and now, HD-A3s) were bought as holiday gifts.Now you're just changing your point. You were claiming that sales didn't increase in December. They did, and they did so at a higher rate for Blu-ray. Now you're claiming it doesn't matter because sales didn't pass until February. But your original statement was "It took a couple of months for software sales to rise", which is untrue. If you'd replaced "rise" with "overtake" then I would agree, but that's not what you said.

Not to be a smart-@$$ (I'm not trying, it just comes naturally to me), but as someone who works fairly regularly with statistical analysis (around pricing and volume of commodity purchases) I'd like to suggest that perhaps the relationship you're alluding to (i.e., that the Wal-Mart data is similar to the data at large) may not be quite consistent. In QA there is this thing called "selection bias" (or more accurately "sampling bias"). Sampling bias is created when the data set being sampled (or in this case, not being sampled) is somehow inherently different than other possible data sets or samples. As an example, if you performed a survey at a pricey ski resort, it is unlikely that the data you got back would be applicable to the population at large, because the location you chose to sample from had an inherent bias (towards higher income levels which is correlated with all sorts of other interesting attributes like education level, ethnicity, political views, etc.). So, for the case at hand, there may be some sample bias inherent in Wal-Mart data (just speculating, I don't actually know, one would have to see that data). I don't think that it is too far of stretch, however, to see that Wal-Mart attracts certain types of shoppers/buyers (ones who are typically interested in certain types of purchases and price points), and that Wal-Mart has some vested interest in the format "conflict" and may actually be favoring HD DVD. As such, it would not surprise me in the least if the HD media sales data from Wal-Mart was not just slightly different, but drastically different than Nielsen as a whole.

Just my two cents.

This could be true, but Wal-mart hasn't picked on side over the other. They had a HD DVD promotion and they had a Blu-ray promotion. For HD DVD, they sold players at a low cost. For BD, they sold the PS3 with 10 free movies (at retail, almost a $250 value). They seem to be neutral in this game.

Well, good for you. Just because you disagree doesn't mean you're right.
Well, there's plenty of evidence elsewhere,Talk (an insider) says people who buy higher priced players are more likely to buy high priced software, yet offers no evidence. You apparently agree with him, yet offer no evidence. Evidence shows lower priced HD DVD player purchasers buying more software per player. Please show evidence if you have anything other than an opinion.

Now you're just changing your point. You were claiming that sales didn't increase in December. They did, and they did so at a higher rate for Blu-ray. Now you're claiming it doesn't matter because sales didn't pass until February. But your original statement was "It took a couple of months for software sales to rise", which is untrue. If you'd replaced "rise" with "overtake" then I would agree, but that's not what you said.You obviously do not remember what I said, so here it is:

You do understand that software sales do not rise immediately and dramatically after hardware sales in November and December? I'm sure the studios do. Holiday gift giving and all...IIRC the same happened after the PS3 launched in Nov. '06. It took a couple of months for software sales to rise.Please take my comments in context.

Talk said "Regardless, it's certainly the case that selling a bunch of $99 players without a concomitant rise in software sales isn't going to be very encouraging to the studios.", Studios are not so dumb as to expect an immediate and dramatic rise in sales from hardware purchases in November/December.

With that I am out.

The last time we saw similar numbers for blu ray the unexpected happened.

While blu ray fans were prancing about and parading in victory laps major studio's went exclusive in the other direction. :)

Could be just a sales spike selling these strong titles to existing user base.
It's very obvious that the last couple of weeks we had:
-strong titles released on br
-nothing much from hd dvd after Transformers and ShrekIII.

A bit soon to claim that br is now outpacing HD DVD considerably. Especially when the numbers are skewed because of a strong release schedule and sale offerings the last couple of weeks.
Without absolute numbers of HDM market growth we can't really tell.

Interesting is that dvdempire numbers where tracking the nielson numbers fairly accurate. However the last couple of weeks dvdempire numbers are more stable hovering around 38:62. My guess is that the empire ration is less skewed due to sales offerings.

Nielsen numbers, walmart numbers, dvdempire and others will all show similar ratio's if the sample base is large enough.

This could be true, but Wal-mart hasn't picked on side over the other. They had a HD DVD promotion and they had a Blu-ray promotion. For HD DVD, they sold players at a low cost. For BD, they sold the PS3 with 10 free movies (at retail, almost a $250 value). They seem to be neutral in this game.

Ok, since the "$149 or less" Chinese manufactured HD DVD player (aka Venturer) HD DVD player has yet to materialize (I firmly believe that we'll see $149 or less before the year is out), let us assume that Wal-Mart has not yet cast its vote in this format "military action". Let's just take the hypothetical self-selecting criteria of: a) Wal-Mart attracts people who are looking for low prices (granted, I don't know anyone who is looking for high prices, but I think it isn't an unfair characterization to say that an over-weighted percentage of folks who shop Wal-Mart are price sensitive) and b) Wal-Mart sells both next generation HD disc format players, one of which is priced under $200, the other of which is priced at above $400 (PS3 aside).

With those two (admittedly assumptive, but certainly not out of the question) self-selecting criteria, I'd have to again say that it is likely that Wal-Mart's results do not mimic the reported results of Nielsen.

As always, just my two cents.

Talk says that people who spend more for a player are more likely to buy higher priced software. I disagreed with his assertion...and I still do.Mike, don't be ridiculous. Obviously the the PS3 has a different dynamic with regards to content attach rates than do standalone players since some percentage of them are being bought exclusively or primarily for game playing. Are you disputing that someone who's willing to spend $400 - $1000 on a standalone player is likely to be less price-sensitive, and hence more likely to spend on high-def content, than someone who doesn't buy an HD DVD player until it's under $100?

Mike, don't be ridiculous. Obviously the the PS3 has a different dynamic with regards to content attach rates than do standalone players since some percentage of them are being bought exclusively or primarily for game playing. Are you disputing that someone who's willing to spend $400 - $1000 on a standalone player is likely to be less price-sensitive, and hence more likely to spend on high-def content, than someone who doesn't buy an HD DVD player until it's under $100?

Talk,

Not sure if you saw my question in the other thread, but doesn't this argument also reinforce some neutrality points? Basically, someone who is willing to spend $400 - $1000 on a standalone player and is less price-sensitive is more likely to just purchase a $98 player as well and be Format Neutral so they can ignore the colors of the cases, no?

Using this logic, the same could not be said for those that start off with $98 or $149 players. They are more price sensitive and are thereforce less likely to go Neutral.

Would you agree?

Talk- you lost me.

If you buy a Caddy and I buy a Chevy. Don't we both have to buy gas to fill the tanK?

We still get from A to B in the same time frame based on the speed limits.

The gas is the same price for both of us.

Talk- you lost me.

If you buy a Caddy and I buy a Chevy. Don't we both have to buy gas to fill the tanK?

We still get from A to B in the same time frame based on the speed limits.

The gas is the same price for both of us.

Bad analogy - you can't rent gas.

Talk- you lost me.

If you buy a Caddy and I buy a Chevy. Don't we both have to buy gas to fill the tanK?

We still get from A to B in the same time frame based on the speed limits.

The gas is the same price for both of us.

But the Caddy buyer usually can afford to buy more gas and accessories.

The gas is the same price for both of us.

Not necessarily, a Cadillac is more likely to require premium grade gasoline than a Chevy and that extra cost to fill the tank each week would impact the potential Chevy owner's decision to purchase a vehicle more than it would the potential Cadillac owner.

Not necessarily, a Cadillac is more likely to require premium grade gasoline than a Chevy and that extra cost to fill the tank each week would impact the potential Chevy owner's decision to purchase a vehicle more than it would the potential Cadillac owner.

So a Caddy is more expensive to buy and more expensive to maintain. Yet they both get you from A to B. And there is a good chance the Chevy gets better gas mileage.

But the Caddy buyer usually can afford to buy more gas and accessories.
You can't assume that. :p Perhaps he blu his whole wad on the caddy and can't really afford much else. :D

So a Caddy is more expensive to buy and more expensive to maintain. Yet they both get you from A to B. And there is a good chance the Chevy gets better gas mileage.

Getting from point A to point B isn't the point. It's how you get there! ;)

Bad analogy - you can't rent gas.

Plus, if you eat enough baked beans, the gas is free.

Plus, if you eat enough baked beans, the gas is free.

Buddy, if you could run a car with that kind of gas, I'd never have to stop at the pumps again. :D

So a Caddy is more expensive to buy and more expensive to maintain. Yet they both get you from A to B. And there is a good chance the Chevy gets better gas mileage.

But the Caddy is more comfortable and has a higher level of performance (with a better signal to noise ratio:p).

.

So here we are - end of November - the economy is CTD (Circling The Drain), the price of oil is on top of the roof - we are into winter so those home heating bills are starting to appear . . . and we want the public to embrace HDM. A total luxury if there ever was one.

The last time we saw similar numbers for blu ray the unexpected happened.

While blu ray fans were prancing about and parading in victory laps major studio's went exclusive in the other direction. :)

Could be just a sales spike selling these strong titles to existing user base.
It's very obvious that the last couple of weeks we had:
-strong titles released on br
-nothing much from hd dvd after Transformers and ShrekIII.

A bit soon to claim that br is now outpacing HD DVD considerably. Especially when the numbers are skewed because of a strong release schedule and sale offerings the last couple of weeks.
Without absolute numbers of HDM market growth we can't really tell.

Interesting is that dvdempire numbers where tracking the nielson numbers fairly accurate. However the last couple of weeks dvdempire numbers are more stable hovering around 38:62. My guess is that the empire ration is less skewed due to sales offerings.

Nielsen numbers, walmart numbers, dvdempire and others will all show similar ratio's if the sample base is large enough.

That studio's move has failed to yield results other than one title which would do well on whatever format it was released on.

People have been saying "Its too soon to delare etc" for some time now, not much seems to change.

And who's "skewing" anything? Both sides are trying their hardest to influence sales ,that's called business. If I a business strategy to influence sales fails or falls short, we call that a "Failed" business strategy.

The optimism here is inspiring though,
I'm buying lotto tickets tonight.

The last time we saw similar numbers for blu ray the unexpected happened.

While blu ray fans were prancing about and parading in victory laps major studio's went exclusive in the other direction. :)
Are you saying low HD DVD numbers are good for the format? Or that it's time to dump a boatload of cash on another studio's doorstep?

That studio's move has failed to yield results other than one title which would do well on whatever format it was released on.


I'm pretty sure the marquee titles for either format would do well regardless of whether it was in a Blue Case or a Red Case.

Why don't all Studio's just go Neutral so the consumer can decide this once and for all?

Are you saying low HD DVD numbers are good for the format? Or that it's time to dump a boatload of cash on another studio's doorstep?

I think what he's saying is that despite how we interpret the numbers and cheerlead one way or another, the Studio's clearly have a completely different perspective on things.

Oh, and as far as dumping cash on a Studio Doorstep, it's disingenous to think that Sony and the BDA didn't counter-offer anything the HD DVD PRG did. It's pretty clear that Paramount felt their best interests were served by the more consumer friendly, higher value, and cost effective format so they switched. What's most damaging about their swap, of course, is that they actually tried both and decided they didn't like one.

I wonder what would happen if Disney or Fox tried both? :)

So here we are - end of November - the economy is CTD (Circling The Drain), the price of oil is on top of the roof - we are into winter so those home heating bills are starting to appear . . . and we want the public to embrace HDM. A total luxury if there ever was one.

Speak for yourself!

Having my movies in HD is an absolute necessity! :cool:

ah, as your economy tanks ours is doing -great-, and with our Dollar at the highest levels in decades, more money to spend on HD! :)

As always, my attitude for this whole mess is to get as many titles as I can from either format before the studios realize this terrible mistake and move onto the next boondoggle... God, it's fun while it lasts however...

Bad analogy - you can't rent gas.

Beer is a better analogy. You don't buy beer, you only rent it :)

Are you saying low HD DVD numbers are good for the format? Or that it's time to dump a boatload of cash on another studio's doorstep?

Low numbers? High numbers? We can't conclude that from a ratio. Perhaps both formats sold less or more discs than a couple of weeks before. But we can't tell without actual numbers.


Looking at a ratio's without the complete picture is short sighted.
Sale offerings, blockbuster releases, skew de numbers short term.

Studios have a better picture to look at.

Mike, don't be ridiculous. Obviously the the PS3 has a different dynamic with regards to content attach rates than do standalone players since some percentage of them are being bought exclusively or primarily for game playing. Are you disputing that someone who's willing to spend $400 - $1000 on a standalone player is likely to be less price-sensitive, and hence more likely to spend on high-def content, than someone who doesn't buy an HD DVD player until it's under $100?Talk - don't be ridiculous.

The reason I am asking for evidence from you is because you have a tendency to say stuff without any proof whatsoever.

HD DVD standalones have always been 1/2 the cost of BD standalones, more or less. Your assertion is that BD standalone purchasers are more likely to spend on high def media than HD DVD purchasers because their hardware is more expensive. How much more likely? You either don't know or won't say.

But it isn't hard to find out. Using rough numbers for easy math:

If, in October, there were 500K HD-DVD (and XBox add-ons) and 250K BD standalones...If BD purchasers were twice as likely to buy media than HD DVD purchasers, then the Nielsons would show a tie for the month (even without any purchases from the PS3 buyers). That means that the 2 million installed base of PS3s contributes extremely little to BD software purchases and should be considered a failure.

If BD standalone purchasers were 4 times as likely to buy than HD DVD buyers, then that's the Nielson 2:1 ratio right there, and therefore the 2,000,000 PS3 buyers bought nothing!

Ridiculous I know. That flies in the face of statistics last year which showed blu-ray take over the software sales lead from HD DVD in late February, after 687 PS3s entered the market in November and December. If 2 million PS3s had any substantial contribution whatsoever, that would make BD standalones about = HD DVD standalones, and your assertion wrong.

Which is it Talk? Do BD standalone purchasers buy 2-4 times as much software as HD DVD player purchasers? Some evidence might be nice instead of empty opinion. :)

Which is it Talk? Do BD standalone purchasers buy 2-4 times as much software as HD DVD player purchasers? Some evidence might be nice instead of empty opinion. :)

I think we have just to admit that there is no way to untangle that mess. No matter how you slice it, you'll never be able to generate a separate "PS3 attach rate" and standalone attach rate for the BD market.

We'll have to just be satisfied with the numbers we have and all draw our own conclusions. Attach rate is really just a secondary measurement anyway and was never given as much importance as it has been granted in the last year.

Ultimately software sales and revenue is what everyone is chasing, that's the whole reason for launching these formats - setup a DVD-like cash-cow that can be milked for years and fatten the studio's bottom-lines. Focusing on attach rate is a case of the tail wagging the dog.

I think we have just to admit that there is no way to untangle that mess. No matter how you slice it, you'll never be able to generate a separate "PS3 attach rate" and standalone attach rate for the BD market.I'm sure BDA studios are trying to sort that out. After all, PS3s are 95% of the BD installed base. You have to know who your customer is.

We'll have to just be satisfied with the numbers we have and all draw our own conclusions. Attach rate is really just a secondary measurement anyway and was never given as much importance as it has been granted in the last year. Remember UMD at all?

Ultimately software sales and revenue is what everyone is chasing, that's the whole reason for launching these formats - setup a DVD-like cash-cow that can be milked for years and fatten the studio's bottom-lines. Focusing on attach rate is a case of the tail wagging the dog.UMD started with much fanfare in May of '05:

Sony PSP Movie Sales Strong (http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/5002/umd.html)

Well, the numbers are starting to come in on UMD movie sales and the results are excellent.

Since the introduction of the PSP two Sony titles have hit the 100,000 mark in unit sales, Resident Evil 2 and House of the Flying Daggers. Both titles shipped on April 19th, reaching these numbers within a month of release. To put that in perspective the first DVD title to reach 100K was Air Force One and it took 9 months to reach it.

and ended 10 months later with a whimper:

Sony's UMD problems about to get much worse (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060330-6490.html)

Unidentified sources with Universal Studios Home Entertainment summed up matters grimly:

"It's awful. Sales are near zilch. It's another Sony bomb -- like Blu-ray."

An executive at Paramount had similar tidings of unjoy and smackage, saying "We are on hiatus with UMD... Releasing titles on UMD is the exception rather than the rule. No one's even breaking even on them." To hit the trifecta, another studio executive speaking anonymously said, "No one's watching movies on PSP; It's a game player, period."

Currently, Universal and Paramount are stalled on UMD releases, while Buena Vista (Disney) and Twentieth Century Fox and even Sony are scaling back their existing plans.

So I would think that studios are trying to keep a close watch on PS3 gamers attach rates for movies.

No, Wal Mart moves massive amounts of standard dvd because its one of the cheapest places to get dvd. They always have a big "bargain" section and now I see they even have a $299 section...I saw 'Syriana" in that.

I hope noone would assume that it would hold 40% of the hdm market. Their selection is awful and not much yet in the way of dscounts. My local walmarts are stocking 2:! blu and their selection is still limited.

Like what was said, Wal Mart doesnt report its data with neilsen. And we have no idea what's going on there. But if someone can speculate that hd dvd is doing better there, I can speculate this:

The HD DVD players sold there, those adopters arent buying a lot of $30 discs.They are buying dvds out of the bargain racks for $13.99,$7.99 etc.
I can bet the attach rates right now on those $98 players are awful.

Since the wal marts I've seen stock more blu than hd dvd, I can only assume they are selling more blu. Theres alot of ps3 action at walmart. And seeing that a new game is about $55...a $25 disc is an appealing gift for little johnny or his dad who are getting a ps3 for xmas. My bet is that wal mart's paltry HDM sales data would swing neilsens further to blu's side and do more damge to hd dvds cause if they were to share with neilsen.

Be careful what you wish for.
You must have a terrible local Wal-Mart. The one near me has releases priced anywhere from $18-25. Unfortunately, the combos and some releases now and then are $29.99, a few dollars higher than I'm willing to pay (I'll get those on Amazon).

Selection isn't no where near as large as say Best Buy, but it's around 10 racks.

Only recently have they introduced those $14 sales, but except for the very, very beginning, they've had solid $18-25 prices.

I don't think anyone would say the attach rate is twice as high for BD players much less 4X. I do think it is likely it is 6 disks per player (bd)to 5 disks per player (hd). What is interesting to me is that it appears that BD SA sales have completely fallen off the map (atleast in comparison to HD DVD). This can only mean two things. First people are not buying BD players. Second, they are moving to PS3s as primary BD players. It may be a small combination of the two but I think the latter is quite likely. After all there is significant value with the PS3; there is no risk of obsolescence, it can upgrade profiles, it will retain significant value even if bd "loses" etc. The issue is that this completely changes the economics of the PS3. Rather than subsidize a gaming console (leading to significant future revenues from game purchases), they are cannibalizing a SA BD player sale and selling a gaming console (with a small chance of recouping losses from games) at a substantial loss. It appears more and more that this format is going to be completely driven by PS3s.

Is there any information/surveys that would lend credence to my theory of primary uses of the PS3 changing for some? There is certainly significant anecdotal information on these boards on the popularity of substituting a SA BD with a PS3. How does this subsidization compare with Toshiba's? How are BD SA's selling this holiday season?

I don't think anyone would say the attach rate is twice as high for BD players much less 4X. I do think it is likely it is 6 disks per player (bd)to 5 disks per player (hd). What is interesting to me is that it appears that BD SA sales have completely fallen off the map (atleast in comparison to HD DVD). This can only mean two things. First people are not buying BD players. Second, they are moving to PS3s as primary BD players. It may be a small combination of the two but I think the latter is quite likely. After all there is significant value with the PS3; there is no risk of obsolescence, it can upgrade profiles, it will retain significant value even if bd "loses" etc. The issue is that this completely changes the economics of the PS3. Rather than subsidize a gaming console (leading to significant future revenues from game purchases), they are cannibalizing a SA BD player sale and selling a gaming console (with a small chance of recouping losses from games) at a substantial loss. It appears more and more that this format is going to be completely driven by PS3s.

Is there any information/surveys that would lend credence to my theory of primary uses of the PS3 changing for some? There is certainly significant anecdotal information on these boards on the popularity of substituting a SA BD with a PS3. How does this subsidization compare with Toshiba's? How are BD SA's selling this holiday season?

Well I found the YTD sales numbers as of 10/26/07:

Since the year began, Home Media says consumers have purchased 2.6 million Blu-ray discs versus 1.4 million for HD DVD

http://www.tvpredictions.com/blulead102607.htm

So for 2007 - there were approx 420,000 HD players at this time and about 2.2 million BD players.

As far as BD SAL sales - I am sure that all the articles on the Profile issue have done something to stymie their sales. And if the masses are considering an SAL player - they are going to see $399 prices at their B & M. CER. Is that a mass adoption price?

I remember paying $400 for my first JVC DVD player and it didn't even have progressive scan. I later bought the PS2 $250 for games and to use as my second DVD player. In todays cost the prices would probably be 25% more.

I remember paying $400 for my first JVC DVD player and it didn't even have progressive scan. I later bought the PS2 $250 for games and to use as my second DVD player. In todays cost the prices would probably be 25% more.

I remember paying $.26 a gallon when I first started driving.

What people pay today is what they are going to compare to. Not years ago.

Talk - don't be ridiculous.

The reason I am asking for evidence from you is because you have a tendency to say stuff without any proof whatsoever.

HD DVD standalones have always been 1/2 the cost of BD standalones, more or less. Your assertion is that BD standalone purchasers are more likely to spend on high def media than HD DVD purchasers because their hardware is more expensive. How much more likely? You either don't know or won't say.

But it isn't hard to find out. Using rough numbers for easy math:

If, in October, there were 500K HD-DVD (and XBox add-ons) and 250K BD standalones...If BD purchasers were twice as likely to buy media than HD DVD purchasers, then the Nielsons would show a tie for the month (even without any purchases from the PS3 buyers). That means that the 2 million installed base of PS3s contributes extremely little to BD software purchases and should be considered a failure.

If BD standalone purchasers were 4 times as likely to buy than HD DVD buyers, then that's the Nielson 2:1 ratio right there, and therefore the 2,000,000 PS3 buyers bought nothing!

Ridiculous I know. That flies in the face of statistics last year which showed blu-ray take over the software sales lead from HD DVD in late February, after 687 PS3s entered the market in November and December. If 2 million PS3s had any substantial contribution whatsoever, that would make BD standalones about = HD DVD standalones, and your assertion wrong.

Which is it Talk? Do BD standalone purchasers buy 2-4 times as much software as HD DVD player purchasers? Some evidence might be nice instead of empty opinion. :)

Except that the key part of Talk's quote was:

"Are you disputing that someone who's willing to spend $400 - $1000 on a standalone player is likely to be less price-sensitive, and hence more likely to spend on high-def content, than someone who doesn't buy an HD DVD player until it's under $100?"

Depending on who's numbers you choose to believe, that would mean at the most about 20% of the current HD-DVD players were purchased from under $100. So that would skew your calculations if you were replying to his actual quote.

Except that the key part of Talk's quote was:

"Are you disputing that someone who's willing to spend $400 - $1000 on a standalone player is likely to be less price-sensitive, and hence more likely to spend on high-def content, than someone who doesn't buy an HD DVD player until it's under $100?"

Depending on who's numbers you choose to believe, that would mean at the most about 20% of the current HD-DVD players were purchased from under $100. So that would skew your calculations if you were replying to his actual quote.

Very good point.

I remember paying $.26 a gallon when I first started driving.

What people pay today is what they are going to compare to. Not years ago.

That's not the point, my point is what I was willing to pay for a DVD player because I saw value in the product. Don't remind me about 26 cent gasoline, it will almost make me cry (remember a slice of pizza for 15 cents).:rolleyes:

That's not the point, my point is what I was willing to pay for a DVD player because I saw value in the product. Don't remind me about 26 cent gasoline, it will almost make me cry (remember a slice of pizza for 15 cents).:rolleyes:

Are the masses like us? - the EA? IMO - No. Price is king. Many people got into DVD in 2003 - 6 years after SI.

Ahhhh . . . the good old days . . a complete meal at MacDonalds - and change back from your dollar.;)

I remember paying $.26 a gallon when I first started driving.

What people pay today is what they are going to compare to. Not years ago.

And they threw in a set of steak knives and "Green Stamps" too!
But I digress...:D

Now you get 5 - 10 free movies with a purchase.
-t

And they threw in a set of steak knives and "Green Stamps" too!
But I digress...:D

Now you get 5 - 10 free movies with a purchase.
-t

And a great deal it is! Like getting the player for free! It's the 11th one that's the killer!:p

And I remember you used to buy dishwashing detergent and got a beautiful blue tinted glass in each box! Mom still has 3 left - out of about 10.:)

You must have a terrible local Wal-Mart. The one near me has releases priced anywhere from $18-25. Unfortunately, the combos and some releases now and then are $29.99, a few dollars higher than I'm willing to pay (I'll get those on Amazon).

Selection isn't no where near as large as say Best Buy, but it's around 10 racks.

Only recently have they introduced those $14 sales, but except for the very, very beginning, they've had solid $18-25 prices.

Kinda,
the one closest to me has one endcap. 4 rows of Blu Ray and 2 rows HD DVD. The other two further away have a little better on one and worse on the other(mansfield).

Of course if I were near Philly or so , I imagine it would be better, but I'm out here in Pennsyltucky.

Seems to be a lot of obsession over Talk making that pricing comment.
I think I would of said it like this:

The guy who waits for HDM to drop to $100 at Wal Mart before he'll take interest is not the one who drops $ on software new releases. He's the guy rummaging through the bargain bin ( you know the one where it's just a big pile of random dvds in a giant bin in the middle of the isle), yeah I'd say he's mostly that guy..although not everyone fits that description.

So I would have to agree with Talk, for the most part.

Except that the key part of Talk's quote was:

"Are you disputing that someone who's willing to spend $400 - $1000 on a standalone player is likely to be less price-sensitive, and hence more likely to spend on high-def content, than someone who doesn't buy an HD DVD player until it's under $100?Oh, so now it's at the particular price point of $99. If it was $159 or $199 that is somehow different?

Talk has no idea how much software will be bought by owners of those players in the coming months. He is just guessing.

The DVD landscape is littered with examples of players bought at bargain basement prices that were sold to videophiles (Panasonic, Oppo, Zenith, etc.). They could do what much more expensive players could not. In this case, the A2/A3 can do PiP and internet connectivity, which more expensive BD players cannot. I bet they will have a fantastic software attach rate over their useful life.

But I am just guessing that they will. And Talk is just hoping otherwise.

The BDA has been lamenting the lower prices of the HD DVD players for one reason or another ever since 2006 CES. And BD supporters (consumers?) have been consistently backing up this point of view, as if giving them more money for the same or less performance somehow makes more sense, It's as if the BDA is some sort of charitable organization. "Buy more expensive hardware so that HDM can live a fruitful life".

Seems to be a lot of obsession over Talk making that pricing comment.
I think I would of said it like this:

The guy who waits for HDM to drop to $100 at Wal Mart before he'll take interest is not the one who drops $ on software new releases. He's the guy rummaging through the bargain bin ( you know the one where it's just a big pile of random dvds in a giant bin in the middle of the isle), yeah I'd say he's mostly that guy..although not everyone fits that description."The guy" more than likely has an HDTV (unlike many PS3 purchasers). "The guy" probably really likes HD, otherwise he would not throw away $100 on a potentially dead format player. "The guy" could be the guy who bought bargain basement DVD players with great performance 2, 3 or 5 years ago. "The guy" will probably buy (a lot) more than 4 or 5 HD movies over the course of the players useful life - otherwise why bother? Just stick to DVD until the war is over and avoid plowing ANY money into a potentially dead format. DVD is a wonderful format if you have a cheap HDTV and HTiB. But obviously these people want a little better than that, no? They want something special to show friends and neighbors, just like you and me.

Truth is, no one knows "who" bought those players. When an "Insider" pontificates on this (and other) hypotheses they are merely hoping will come true, people on this board should call them on it if they smell BS.

This whole issue of "cheap" HD DVD players is nothing more than BS. . . Price Envy and nothing more.

The A2 was selling for $399 at the beginning of the year. Everyone thought it was a good entry level player. Now that you can buy one for $99 - it stinks? It degrades the HD DVD format? Gimme a freakin break!

So if GM decided to lower the price of a Malibu from $20,000 to $5000 - WHO wouldn't stand in line to buy one?:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Talkstr8t
Any attempt to determine an attach rate for Blu-ray requires hypothesizing the number of PS3's being used as Blu-ray players, and regardless it's going to be nothing but a guess. I fail to see why attach rates matter, a studio profits based on total sales, not attached sales, and future attach rates will certainly change (i.e. those sucked in by $98 HD DVD players at Walmart are unlikely to consume at the same rate as those buying $1000 Pioneer Blu-ray players).
Well, I think it matters for a couple of reasons:

1) You have on a couple of occasions used the likelihood of the PS3 becoming 1.1 enabled in order to be able to state that only a minority of existing players would not have 1.1 capability. Problem is that due to poor PS3 attach rates, it would appear that standalone decks may account for 50% or better of disc viewers. Which means studios are in a dilemma as to how to deal with 1.1 content without alienating user base.

2) It's been said a number of times that the PS3 was sold to studios as a BR trojan horse, jumpstarting a large number of installed players. Given A) lackluster PS3 sales, and B) poor attach rates within those sales, it's unclear of how long the "PS3 effect" may satisfy studio expectations for overall volume.


Thus I think total number of players as a whole, including what percentage of those are standalone decks matter.

And we aren't hypothesizing completely in this thread. The poll data referenced earlier gives us some reasonable basis, no?

Talk, it looks like the discussion you've been having recently about who's likely to buy HD discs has brought the issue of attach rates back up.

It does seem like there's as to be SOME reason to account for the deck/disc disparity, no?

Except that the key part of Talk's quote was:

"Are you disputing that someone who's willing to spend $400 - $1000 on a standalone player is likely to be less price-sensitive, and hence more likely to spend on high-def content, than someone who doesn't buy an HD DVD player until it's under $100?"

Depending on who's numbers you choose to believe, that would mean at the most about 20% of the current HD-DVD players were purchased from under $100. So that would skew your calculations if you were replying to his actual quote.

Yes indeed. Talk's own post is discussing why more expensive players would likely drive higher attach rates, yet previously he said attach rates don't matter.

IMHO attach rates are important and there is no really credible way to spin it otherwise. However I also believe people buying more expensive players are also more likely to buy more expensive discs.

- Tom

I think a lot of consumers have learned some hard lessons buying consumer electronics. I once paid $1,000 for a progressive scan DVD player, only to buy another a couple of years later for $50! I bought lots of DVDs when I owned the $1,000 player and lots when I bought the $50.00 player.

I think there are four things happening with the $99 HD DVD player sale:
1) Owners of HD DVD buying a second or third player (no help to disc sales);
2) Owners of HD DVD or BD buying an HD DVD player as a Xmas gift for a family member or friend (should help disc sales);
3) None owner of HDM now buying into the format (HD DVD) because the return is greater than the risk (this will help disc sales); and
4) Owner of BD buying HD DVD for those titles he wants in HDM he can't get with BD. This will also help disc sales quite a lot since this is someone who does buy many titles, relatively speaking and knows what he's doing (although he could just rent on HD DVD as I buy only HD DVD titles and rent BD).

There is really only one scenario that won't help disc sales and that's the repeat buyer of HD DVD players. I speculate that the bulk of the sales went to those in categories 2 and 4, especially 2 because of the timing.

Cheers,

Grant

There is really only one scenario that won't help disc sales and that's the repeat buyer of HD DVD players. I speculate that the bulk of the sales went to those in categories 2 and 4, especially 2 because of the timing.


One other category at the $99 price people could purchase the player to upconvert standard DVDs since most upconvert DVD players sell for that price. This also would not benefit HD-DVD sales.

One other category at the $99 price people could purchase the player to upconvert standard DVDs since most upconvert DVDE players sell for that price. This also would not benefit HD-DVD sales.That's why both formats backers are now including the free movies - to get the consumer to try it out with minimal risk and hopefully see the added value there. The "Once you go HD it's hard to go back" scenario.

"Truth is, no one knows "who" bought those players. When an "Insider" pontificates on this (and other) hypotheses they are merely hoping will come true, people on this board should call them on it if they smell BS."

I think the key word you used is "hyptheses". I think Talk has been pretty straight up about what are his opinions and theories and this was one and I think anyone is certainly welcome to have a different speculation. He's certainly entitled to his. And since we have a big community of those who can really benefit from optimism right now, and don't like hearing any "pessimistic" speculation on hddvd...I don't think you'll see many wanting to agree with any of Talk's speculation however plausible it may me.

I for one, just wish WM would go ahead and share their data so this "unfairness" in the neilsen reports talking point could just be settled once and for all.

I think many may be suprised and the subject matter would shift pretty quickly.

To argue people who spend more on a player will spend more on titles is circular logic.

If indeed HDM's main rival is SD DVD. Of course people who spend more on a player will be more comfortable spending more on titles. Because in most cases, they have more disposable income. But you then have a whole chunk of the market that don't have the disposable income to spend on a BR player, but might be able to afford a cheaper HD DVD player. Certainly there are more people with an extra $150-300 laying around than those with $400. So you end up with more people with the cheaper player, but buying fewer titles than those who bought the expensive player. They cancel each other out.

People threw a fit when the 360 and PS3 came around and suddenly games had gone from $50 a pop to $60. But they adjusted. and now it's just normal to see a game for 60 clams.