Blu-ray 4K UHD - coming 2015? - Page 163 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 1519Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #4861 of 4969 Old 09-11-2016, 12:19 AM
Senior Member
 
sarahb75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Norton, Ohio
Posts: 485
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 362 Post(s)
Liked: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by wco81 View Post
Yeah if you want apple to apple comparisons, which times of the year did the launch windows include? There's a difference between sales in March and sales in November -- I don't recall when Blu Ray launched.

Then the availability of the software. How long before Blu Ray got Star Wars and other big titles?

Then there was the PS3 boosting sales of players vs. what now, $500 and up players?

UHD BR may not even be as successful as BR.

But what are the download/streaming options with the highest fidelity? Niche things like Kaleidoscape?

1080p Blu-ray launched in June of 2006, with only one player available, a $1,000 Samsung which got bad reviews from the video enthusiast magazines because it was introduced with a non-defeatable noise filtering circuit which softened the picture with Blu-ray discs. It took a number of months for Samsung to address the problem with its first BD player.

Toshiba had already introduced its first 2 HD-DVD players in April 2006, 2 months before Blu-ray was introduced.

Plus, in addition to Samsung botching the launch of 1080p Blu-ray with its first ill fated player, many of the early Blu-ray discs were not as well mastered as the early HD-DVD discs were.

Basically, for about the first 6 months that Blu-ray discs were sold, many reviewers were opining that HD-DVDs generally looked better than Blu-rays.

But with the introduction of the Sony Playstation 3 in November 2006, at a non-discounted price of $599.95, plus the gradual improvements that were showing up in the mastering done for new Blu-ray disc releases, the Blu-ray format really began to take off and was soon overtaking the HD-DVD format, in disc sales.

Mike Boone
rogo likes this.

Last edited by sarahb75; 09-11-2016 at 12:25 AM. Reason: missing word
sarahb75 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4862 of 4969 Old 09-11-2016, 12:42 AM
Senior Member
 
drummernrg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Austin, TX, US
Posts: 465
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Liked: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by wco81 View Post
It sounds like the streaming services are emphasizing original series more, not movies.
You are right: Netflix and Amazon lease movie and TV shows from the studios for us, they are just a temporary streaming middle-man.

The studios want to retain customers on their cable channels, home media retail releases (DVD, blu-ray, etc.), sell to other vendors (Vudu, iTunes, Redbox, etc.), and their own streaming services like Hulu and Crackle (research who owns them).

So what would you do if you were Amazon and Netflix, et. al?

You become your own studio, own your content, and differentiate yourself from your competitors who will never have your exclusive content. Then you take the next step to pass the studios by going to the state of the art to deliver HDR and UHD before they do.

Competition on all side leads to a lot of variety in our products and with increased choice comes trade-offs.
drummernrg is offline  
post #4863 of 4969 Old 09-11-2016, 08:31 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
wco81's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 8,320
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2712 Post(s)
Liked: 1082
Hulu can't even do 1080p and DD so they're not a viable streaming service to compare with packaged media.

I know Sony was offering downloads for the first 4K TVs but I doubt that's gone very far. Kaleidoscape for the one-percenters.

So really what is the streaming option for movies released in the same window as discs? Just stay with Blu-Ray and DVD is the studios' plan?
wco81 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4864 of 4969 Old 09-11-2016, 12:57 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
HockeyoAJB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,025
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 977 Post(s)
Liked: 823
Quote:
Originally Posted by wco81 View Post
Hulu can't even do 1080p and DD so they're not a viable streaming service to compare with packaged media.

I know Sony was offering downloads for the first 4K TVs but I doubt that's gone very far. Kaleidoscape for the one-percenters.

So really what is the streaming option for movies released in the same window as discs? Just stay with Blu-Ray and DVD is the studios' plan?
Vudu, Flixster, Amazon Instant Video, Google Play, and iTunes are the mainstream video streaming/download services that allow you to rent/purchase movies/tv shows with the same/earlier release dates as Blu-Ray/DVD.

There are also a couple of studio-specific services like Sony's Ultra and Fox Studio's M-go (which is now owned by Fandango and goes by the name FandangoNow).

Netflix and Amazon Prime are for content that has been out for a while (plus their own original content).
HockeyoAJB is offline  
post #4865 of 4969 Old 09-12-2016, 05:52 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 23,130
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4156 Post(s)
Liked: 2390
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyoAJB View Post
Vudu, Flixster, Amazon Instant Video, Google Play, and iTunes are the mainstream video streaming/download services that allow you to rent/purchase movies/tv shows with the same/earlier release dates as Blu-Ray/DVD.
And they all seem to want a ridiculous amount of money for that availability.
stanger89 is offline  
post #4866 of 4969 Old 09-12-2016, 11:21 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
HockeyoAJB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,025
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 977 Post(s)
Liked: 823
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post
And they all seem to want a ridiculous amount of money for that availability.
What do you think they should charge for rental/purchase of content? Currently, their purchase prices are on par with physical media. IMO, their rental prices for new releases could probably come down a dollar or so and they should probably charge no more than $0.99 for content that has been out long enough to show up on Netflix/Amazon Prime/Hulu. They aren't intended to offer price parity with Netflix for new releases. They are supposed to be the place people willing to stream go for new releases, in lieu of physical rental/purchase.
HockeyoAJB is offline  
post #4867 of 4969 Old 09-12-2016, 11:32 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 18,027
Mentioned: 154 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8059 Post(s)
Liked: 10658
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyoAJB View Post
What do you think they should charge for rental/purchase of content? Currently, their purchase prices are on par with physical media. IMO, their rental prices for new releases could probably come down a dollar or so and they should probably charge no more than $0.99 for content that has been out long enough to show up on Netflix/Amazon Prime/Hulu. They aren't intended to offer price parity with Netflix for new releases. They are supposed to be the place people willing to stream go for new releases, in lieu of physical rental/purchase.
If I'm paying the same price, I'll wait for the physical media.
sarahb75 and Toxic teletubby like this.
Craig Peer is online now  
post #4868 of 4969 Old 09-12-2016, 12:24 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 23,130
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4156 Post(s)
Liked: 2390
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyoAJB View Post
What do you think they should charge for rental/purchase of content? Currently, their purchase prices are on par with physical media.
Yup, I'm with Craig, if it's the same price, I'll take a physical disc. Lower quality video, audio, questionable long-term availability (what happens to my "purchase" when Vudu goes belly up), plus the probability of streaming glitches, means a digital "purchase" is worth very little to me. The state of the market today, I might pay the rental prices for a digital purchase, ~$30 for a UHD Vudu "purchase" is ridiculous, that's more than I've paid for most of my UHD Blu-rays that are 10x higher bitrate, plus lossless audio.

Quote:
IMO, their rental prices for new releases could probably come down a dollar or so and they should probably charge no more than $0.99 for content that has been out long enough to show up on Netflix/Amazon Prime/Hulu. They aren't intended to offer price parity with Netflix for new releases. They are supposed to be the place people willing to stream go for new releases, in lieu of physical rental/purchase.
I go through somewhere between 4 and 8 Blu-ray in an average month from Netflix, with full BD quality and lossless audio, my disk plan is $15/mo, so that means it costs me on average $2-4 per physical disc rental, Redbox is $2. Frankly the $6 ($10 for UHD ) are just as crazy for lower quality, potentially glitchy playback, oh, but there's convenience. I'd possibly be willing to trade quality, or price for time/convenience, but not both. What I mean is, if I could rent full Blu-ray quality (or better yet UHD BD quality), but not have to wait the Netflix 30-60 days, I might pay the $6/movie to rent, at least for the better ones. Or if I could pay $2 to rent something at the current level of "HD" or "UHD" streaming quality, I might go for that too, but not $6-10 for a lower quality, possibly glitchy experience, just to have it a few weeks earlier. If I care that much, I buy the disc.
stanger89 is offline  
post #4869 of 4969 Old 09-12-2016, 12:28 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 32,172
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1901 Post(s)
Liked: 2206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post
If I'm paying the same price, I'll wait for the physical media.
What do you think the age cutoffs are where:

1) A majority of people are indifferent between physical media and digital ownership?

2) A majority of people would prefer digital ownership to physical ownership?

3) A majority of people would not purchase physical media?

I presume this is a descending scale based on a lifetime of habits, expectations about the value of physical ownership, etc. But I know people -- plenty -- who would never own physical media. They are mostly millennials and younger, but not entirely.

Anyway, I'm curious about crowdsourcing some of these values, so I'd rather not put numbers out there first. But I believe it's reasonable to argue that:

Above XX years old, most people would prefer physical media.
At something less than XX, call it YY, people -- collectively -- are indifferent.
At something less than YY, people would actually prefer digital ownership. Call that ZZ.
And at something less than ZZ, the majority of people simply would not even buy discs for video content.

There's a saying about "everything in moderation". If only it was applied to well, you know...
rogo is offline  
post #4870 of 4969 Old 09-12-2016, 12:46 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 18,027
Mentioned: 154 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8059 Post(s)
Liked: 10658
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post
What do you think the age cutoffs are where:

1) A majority of people are indifferent between physical media and digital ownership?

2) A majority of people would prefer digital ownership to physical ownership?

3) A majority of people would not purchase physical media?

I presume this is a descending scale based on a lifetime of habits, expectations about the value of physical ownership, etc. But I know people -- plenty -- who would never own physical media. They are mostly millennials and younger, but not entirely.

Anyway, I'm curious about crowdsourcing some of these values, so I'd rather not put numbers out there first. But I believe it's reasonable to argue that:

Above XX years old, most people would prefer physical media.
At something less than XX, call it YY, people -- collectively -- are indifferent.
At something less than YY, people would actually prefer digital ownership. Call that ZZ.
And at something less than ZZ, the majority of people simply would not even buy discs for video content.
I'm sure younger people couldn't care less about physical media, unless they like collecting things ( some of us do ). Then again, younger people don't have the disposable income that older folks that like physical media do. I don't stream at all, unless you consider Dish cable service streaming. All my money goes to physical media. My wife wants to cut Dish entirely. That would put 100% of our movie spending into BR / 4k UHD BR. Heck, we never actually go to the movies either. I tend to vote with my pocketbook. I vote physical media.
Toxic teletubby likes this.
Craig Peer is online now  
post #4871 of 4969 Old 09-12-2016, 01:34 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 14,455
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2666 Post(s)
Liked: 2378
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Above XX years old, most people would prefer physical media.
At something less than XX, call it YY, people -- collectively -- are indifferent.
At something less than YY, people would actually prefer digital ownership. Call that ZZ.
And at something less than ZZ, the majority of people simply would not even buy discs for video content.
Pure guessing on my part with no data to back it up - I'm going to say 40-45 years old is about the age preference for physical media being 50/50 in preference...and that number increases gradually as the age does. I'm 44 and only use physical media for any serious viewing (I have cable for everything else). A good friend of mine is 42 and only streams and another friend of mine is about 50% streaming and is 47 years old. Of course, none of them are using front projection like myself.
DavidHir is offline  
post #4872 of 4969 Old 09-12-2016, 02:16 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 18,027
Mentioned: 154 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8059 Post(s)
Liked: 10658
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post
Pure guessing on my part with no data to back it up - I'm going to say 40-45 years old is about the age preference for physical media being 50/50 in preference...and that number increases gradually as the age does. I'm 44 and only use physical media for any serious viewing (I have cable for everything else). A good friend of mine is 42 and only streams and another friend of mine is about 50% streaming and is 47 years old. Of course, none of them are using front projection like myself.
With smaller ( than projection screens ) HDTV's, and further viewing distance, quality matters much less.
Craig Peer is online now  
post #4873 of 4969 Old 09-12-2016, 02:37 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
HockeyoAJB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,025
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 977 Post(s)
Liked: 823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post
If I'm paying the same price, I'll wait for the physical media.
I agree with you. I'm just saying that those are the services that are intended to be an alternative to physical media for new release home videos. The studios aren't looking to reduce their revenue. They are merely transitioning from a model where physical media made up the majority of their home video revenue to one where digitally delivered content does so. New releases will remain the same price they were, as you are paying for the privilege of being able to watch the movie before it hits Netflix and the like. For the most part, the studios treat Netflix like a replacement for watching movies when they air on network television. I'm sure that they are willing to sell content streaming rights for new releases to Netflix at a substantially higher rate. But, in most cases, Netflix is not willing to pay the studios "new release" pricing. Of course, none of this applies to Netflix's original content.

Old model
1) Theatrical release - buy a ticket to see it at your local cinema
2) Home Video release (3-6 months after theatrical release) - Buy/rent the VHS/DVD/Blu-Ray disc, use a cable/satellite pay per view channel, or catch it when it airs on HBO/Starz.
3) Network television debut (1 year+ after theatrical release) - watch it on OTA/cable/satellite network channels

New model
1) Theatrical release - same as old model
2) Home Video release (2-4 months after theatrical release) - same as old model plus digital sellthru services like Vudu, Flixster, Amazon Instant Video, Google Play, iTunes, and Kaleidescape.
3) Video streaming subscription release (6+ months after theatrical release) - Netflix and Amazon Prime
4) Network television debut (1 year+ after theatrical release) - same as old model

As you can see, the Home Video release has been bumped up by a month or two. In order to keep box office revenue up, ticket prices have been increased to offset the fact that movies rarely stay in the theater for more than a month or two. Pricing for Home Video release has more or less remained the same. While physical sales are in decline, digital sellthru has been added to the mix and is growing rapidly (though not as fast as video streaming subscription numbers are). Video streaming subscription services are a new source of revenue, which have become very popular. They offer consumers access to movies much sooner than Network TV does, but not as early as Home Video. While this market has eaten into the Home Video market to an extent, due to the the ability to watch as much content as you want for a low fixed price, it has added a significant amount of revenue as a growing percentage of households subscribe, who might have otherwise waited for the movie to air on Network television (or simply skipped it).
Craig Peer likes this.
HockeyoAJB is offline  
post #4874 of 4969 Old 09-12-2016, 02:37 PM
Senior Member
 
reanimator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 416
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarahb75 View Post
Putting Things Into Perspective
Let's see, 288,000 total UHD BD units were sold, but that total was spread among 45 different titles. That means that an average of only about 6,000 units were sold for each available title. That's not all that impressive when you consider that in 2012 "The Avengers" sold more than 5.5 million units on 1080p Blu-ray, which is more than 900 times greater than 6,000 units.
You've compared sales figures from the first six months of UHD-BD to "The Avengers," a title that was released six years into BD's life-cycle -- when many more players were available, and market penetration was substantially higher. That's not perspective.

Honest perspective would be comparing sales figures from the first six months of BD's life-cycle. DEG has already done this, and UHD-BD is selling better than BD over the same launch period.
Toxic teletubby likes this.
reanimator is offline  
post #4875 of 4969 Old 09-12-2016, 02:47 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Craig Peer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 18,027
Mentioned: 154 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8059 Post(s)
Liked: 10658
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyoAJB View Post
I agree with you. I'm just saying that those are the services that are intended to be an alternative to physical media for new release home videos. The studios aren't looking to reduce their revenue. They are merely transitioning from a model where physical media made up the majority of their home video revenue to one where digitally delivered content does so. New releases will remain the same price they were, as you are paying for the privilege of being able to watch the movie before it hits Netflix and the like. For the most part, the studios treat Netflix like a replacement for watching movies when they air on network television. I'm sure that they are willing to sell content streaming rights for new releases to Netflix at a substantially higher rate. But, in most cases, Netflix is not willing to pay the studios "new release" pricing. Of course, none of this applies to Netflix's original content.

Old model
1) Theatrical release - buy a ticket to see it at your local cinema
2) Home Video release (3-6 months after theatrical release) - Buy/rent the VHS/DVD/Blu-Ray disc, use a cable/satellite pay per view channel, or catch it when it airs on HBO/Starz.
3) Network television debut (1 year+ after theatrical release) - watch it on OTA/cable/satellite network channels

New model
1) Theatrical release - same as old model
2) Home Video release (2-4 months after theatrical release) - same as old model plus digital sellthru services like Vudu, Flixster, Amazon Instant Video, Google Play, iTunes, and Kaleidescape.
3) Video streaming subscription release (6+ months after theatrical release) - Netflix and Amazon Prime
4) Network television debut (1 year+ after theatrical release) - same as old model

As you can see, the Home Video release has been bumped up by a month or two. In order to keep box office revenue up, ticket prices have been increased to offset the fact that movies rarely stay in the theater for more than a month or two. Pricing for Home Video release has more or less remained the same. While physical sales are in decline, digital sellthru has been added to the mix and is growing rapidly (though not as fast as video streaming subscription numbers are). Video streaming subscription services are a new source of revenue, which have become very popular. They offer consumers access to movies much sooner than Network TV does, but not as early as Home Video. While this market has eaten into the Home Video market to an extent, due to the the ability to watch as much content as you want for a low fixed price, it has added a significant amount of revenue as a growing percentage of households subscribe, who might have otherwise waited for the movie to air on Network television (or simply skipped it).
They just added a new revenue stream by adding streaming - which is fine. I'm all for the studios making money - they won't be re - mastering movies in 4K if they can't recoup the cost and make some money too. No problem here. I'm just putting my money where my mouth is on the hard media side myself.
Craig Peer is online now  
post #4876 of 4969 Old 09-12-2016, 03:14 PM
Senior Member
 
sarahb75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Norton, Ohio
Posts: 485
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 362 Post(s)
Liked: 237
Red face Sorry About That

Quote:
Originally Posted by reanimator View Post
You've compared sales figures from the first six months of UHD-BD to "The Avengers," a title that was released six years into BD's life-cycle -- when many more players were available, and market penetration was substantially higher. That's not perspective.

Honest perspective would be comparing sales figures from the first six months of BD's life-cycle. DEG has already done this, and UHD-BD is selling better than BD over the same launch period.
You make an excellent point. It was particularly dumb of me to fail to consider that there was an absolutely huge population of 1080p Blu-ray players in the homes of consumers when the "The Avengers" Blu-ray was released back in 2012, so my own comparison was totally invalid.

Well, to quote an old line from the early years of Saturday Night Live, let me just now state, in my most red
faced way: "Never mind!"


Mike Boone
reanimator likes this.

Last edited by sarahb75; 09-12-2016 at 03:16 PM. Reason: still committed a dumb screw-up
sarahb75 is offline  
post #4877 of 4969 Old 09-12-2016, 03:22 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
HockeyoAJB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,025
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 977 Post(s)
Liked: 823
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post
Pure guessing on my part with no data to back it up - I'm going to say 40-45 years old is about the age preference for physical media being 50/50 in preference...and that number increases gradually as the age does. I'm 44 and only use physical media for any serious viewing (I have cable for everything else). A good friend of mine is 42 and only streams and another friend of mine is about 50% streaming and is 47 years old. Of course, none of them are using front projection like myself.
My wife and I are both 39 and 90% of our movie watching is from physical disc (all purchased). Another 8% is DirecTV "made for TV" movies. The last 2% is streaming (mostly free b-grade movies from Crackle). I have purchased 2 movies from iTunes, but only because I was given an iTunes gift card for Christmas and they had a really good sale on one of the titles. I rented a movie from Amazon Instant Video once. We don't subscribe to Netflix or Amazon Prime. I do watch a lot of sports (hockey, football, baseball, soccer, etc.).
HockeyoAJB is offline  
post #4878 of 4969 Old 09-12-2016, 04:20 PM
Advanced Member
 
Lazarus Dark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 622
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 226 Post(s)
Liked: 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post
With smaller ( than projection screens ) HDTV's, and further viewing distance, quality matters much less.
Thank you for reminding me. I always forget this very important point. I want 4k/HDR/high bitrate video and lossless audio because I have a 105" pj screen and 7.2 speakers, several of them mounted on walls/ceilings, with 2000 watts pumping into them. Meanwhile, I know literally one other person who even has speakers (5.1 htib), and no one who has more than a 65" lcd with a ten foot viewing distance.
In my passionate outcries for high quality and why isn't it all available right now at reasonable prices, I forget to realize than 99% of the people I know are fine with Netflix on a 32-50" tv with tv speakers. Of course they aren't interested in high quality, they couldn't see/hear it even if they had it. And for all the "HDR will make even small tv's look better", I just don't think I can convince anyone to invest in the idea. If their next tv just happens to come with HDR and built in Netflix and it just happens to show them HDR, I am not sure they would even notice enough from ten feet away in midday sunlight to even comment "oh, those colors look better".

And now I've made myself sad again, re-remembering how little people care about quality...
sarahb75 likes this.
Lazarus Dark is offline  
post #4879 of 4969 Old 09-12-2016, 04:28 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mhdiab's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Anchorage, AK
Posts: 2,500
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)
Liked: 43
^ I still get my bluray discs from Netflix. What makes me sad is the knowledge that within a few years they will no longer mail discs. It will all be streaming and if I want discs I have to buy them (which I have no interest in).


And the only reason I am totally fine waiting multiple days for the bluray vs streaming is for the quality both pq and audio. But like you I know nobody else with a HT setup and when I stream on my TV upstairs it does look pretty damn good so I get why people are fine with that option
mhdiab is offline  
post #4880 of 4969 Old 09-12-2016, 04:28 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
stanger89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Marion, IA
Posts: 23,130
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4156 Post(s)
Liked: 2390
Yet even with all the doom and gloom about streaming/digital, I look at UHD Blu-ray and I'm pretty happy/excited. It seems most of the big movies coming out (I'm looking you Disney re "most") come out on UHD Blu-ray, so I'm building a nice collection. I've said before and I'll say it again, UHD Blu-ray doesn't need to replace Blu-ray, or streaming to be successful. Laserdisc was a niche format, almost nobody had a player, but tens of thousands of titles were released over the format's ~20 year lifespan. If UHD Blu-ray can even begin to match that, I think it will be a success, and I'll be happy. In the mean time we get basically everything released on Blu-ray in generally fantastic quality.

Blu-ray's the cake, and UHD Blu-ray is the icing
stanger89 is offline  
post #4881 of 4969 Old 09-12-2016, 04:44 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
wco81's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 8,320
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2712 Post(s)
Liked: 1082
iTunes is 1080p, no 4K support yet.

But you also have to deal with ISP caps.

So the studios won't completely cut off UHD unless sales really dive.
wco81 is offline  
post #4882 of 4969 Old 09-12-2016, 07:32 PM
Senior Member
 
sarahb75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Norton, Ohio
Posts: 485
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 362 Post(s)
Liked: 237
1080p Blu-ray's 2006 Launch Had Many Problems That UHD BD Doesn't Have Today

Quote:
Originally Posted by reanimator View Post
You've compared sales figures from the first six months of UHD-BD to "The Avengers," a title that was released six years into BD's life-cycle -- when many more players were available, and market penetration was substantially higher. That's not perspective.

Honest perspective would be comparing sales figures from the first six months of BD's life-cycle. DEG has already done this, and UHD-BD is selling better than BD over the same launch period.
As I acknowledged earlier today, reanimator, you're absolutely right that to compare today's sales of movies on UHD BD with sales of a movie on 1080p BD, when the population of 1080p Blu-ray players had already spent 6 years growing to a huge number of players, was a very invalid comparison for me to make.

However, comparing the total number of movies sold on 1080p Blu-ray during that format's first 6 months on the market, with the total number of movies on UHD Blu-ray that sell in the new format's first 6 months is still not a very valid comparison. Because, back in 2006 when 1080p Blu-ray was introduced to the market, it already had another 1080p disc rival in the stores to compete with. And many consumers who found the Blu-ray concept to be appealing, still held off on buying into a new disc format until one format, or the other would emerge as the winner of the high def disc battle.

And as I mentioned in another post, the home theater/video review press and the members of it who wrote product reviews and test reports were mainly saying, for about the first 5 or 6 months that Blu-ray was on the market, that in their experience movies on HD-DVD tended to yield somewhat superior image quality compared to the Blu-ray movie releases that they were evaluating.

Some reviewers blamed Blu-ray's somewhat lackluster showing in its early months on rush jobs that were done in the remastering of movie transfers. But it also didn't help that the first available Blu-ray player, a $1,000 Samsung that hit the market in June of 2006, arrived in the hands of reviewers and consumers with a built in video noise filter, which not only softened the image of Blu-ray discs, but could not be turned off. I remember a few video reviewers savagely attacking that Samsung player as a failure and a lousy machine to use if a consumer ever wanted to see what Blu-ray was capable of.

If memory serves, it took Samsung a while to even admit its expensive Blu-ray player had a problem, and then several months to fix it.

Unfortunately for 1080p Blu-ray in 2006, the first 5 to 6 months of the life cycle of the new format also saw it being plagued by reports from video and home theater writers that stated that movies on HD-DVD were generally yielding more impressive image quality than was the case with Blu-ray movies, plus the fact that the ONLY Blu-ray player available to consumers for the first few months after Blu-ray hit the stores, was that expensive $1,000 Samsung BD player that the video press was labeling as "a turkey".

And another thing was that, not only did Toshiba's first 2 HD-DVD players beat Blu-ray to the market by 2 months, when they were introduced at Best Buy, and other stores, in April of 2006, but the lower priced of those Toshiba players retailed for $499.95, which was half the price of the Samsung BD player that introduced the public to Blu-ray, while being attacked by the video press after it finally came out in late June.

It really took the introduction of the $599.95 (with no discounts allowed) Sony Playstation 3 in November 2006 (November 17th, if memory serves) to finally allow Blu-ray to start turning things around and stop HD-DVD from kicking Blu-ray's ass

At least today, Joe consumer is not being asked to spend $1,000 on a disc player of questionable quality, that's getting bad reviews, and on top of that, his thousand buck investment might just end up going down the drain, if a competing disc format emerges victorious, pushing the format that Joe invested in, right off of the market. To an awful lot of people today, it has to feel a lot less risky to put their money on the only UHD disc format that the industry supports, rather than having to take the chance that they're betting their money on one of two formats, when only one is likely to survive for very long.

Also, throughout 2006 and most of 2007, American consumers were getting mixed signals about which of their favorite movies would ultimately end up being available on which format. Movie studio executives were not always staying loyal to the same formats. Of the 6 or 7 largest movie studios, only 3 or 4 of those studios seemed to be promising that the lion's share of the movies they made would be available on both high def disc formats, with the rest of the studios being about equally divided between only releasing movies on Blu-ray, or only releasing on HD-DVD. But there were various exceptions too, like a studio indicating that basically all of its movies would be available on both formats, with one exception being that a number of major hits that Steven Spielberg made with that studio, would only being issued on one format.

Anyway, it's easy to understand how confused most consumers in 2006 and 2007 were if trying to figure out which high def disc format was more likely to end up as the wiser choice for the long haul.

At the end of August of 2007, after having come into some money from an inheritance I bought our first high def TV (a 73 inch Mitsubishi Diamond Series DLP that was part of the store's first shipment of 2008 models) and decided to splurge by investing in BOTH high def disc formats, as well as an Integra receiver that was HDMI 3a capable.

Anyhow, before all of the electronics were even delivered and set up in early September 2007, I read that Paramount and Universal had just decided to support HD-DVD exclusively, and drop any further support for Blu-ray. I remember thinking that since my wife and I have no interest in video games, it looked like the Playstation 3 I'd bought would end up being a waste of money since the top of the line Toshiba HD-XA2 HD-DVD player, that I'd also bought, was getting some rave reviews for its ability to do a great upconversion job with standard def DVDs. So it looked like we wouldn't even be using the Playstation 3 to play movies from our 1400 disc DVD collection. Of course, within several months of Paramount's and Universal's announcements, things ended up reversing themselves (with a lot of lobbying "help" from Sony) and Blu-ray finally emerged as the winner over HD-DVD in Feb. 2008.

Anyway, reanimator, I think that you can certainly appreciate now why I think that comparing UHD Blu-ray's disc sales in the first 6 months of this new format, with the first 6 months of 1080p Blu-ray disc sales in 2006, after that format was introduced, is not a valid apples to apples comparison either.

Obviously today, people who are fans of having their movies on physical media have much less reason to be confused or nervous about a decision to invest $400 in a UHD BD player, than the much greater difficulty in deciding that potential supporters of Blu-ray faced in 2006, about whether they should take a chance on an expensive player for a format that could soon be obsolete, while not even knowing for sure which of their favorite movies that the Hollywood studios would even agree to release on that format.


Mike Boone
rogo and Frank714 like this.

Last edited by sarahb75; 09-12-2016 at 07:36 PM. Reason: Grammatical Idiocy (it's why I love the 3 Stooges
sarahb75 is offline  
post #4883 of 4969 Old 09-13-2016, 02:50 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Frank714's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Berlin
Posts: 1,503
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 974 Post(s)
Liked: 429
^ I remember myself being in the HD-DVD camp and was afraid that the mere number of PS 3 sales (and the occasional Blu-ray movie by these early PS 3 adopters) would shift the balance in favor of Blu-ray.


In hindsight that was a good thing as I don't believe we would have seen 3D HD-DVDs. With UHD BD I believe first and foremost the player manufacturers will benefit from 4K display owners.


But if those do not see a visible advantage of UHD BD over standard BD these will probably get stuck just with BD.


The PS 4 Pro could have been a great morale booster (just like before it the PS 3) for UHD BD releases, but unfortunately Sony decided otherwise.

"It is only about things that do not interest one that one can give a really unbiased opinion, which is no doubt the reason why an unbiased opinion is always absolutely valueless." Oscar Wilde
Frank714 is offline  
post #4884 of 4969 Old 09-13-2016, 02:51 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 32,172
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1901 Post(s)
Liked: 2206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post
I'm sure younger people couldn't care less about physical media, unless they like collecting things ( some of us do ). Then again, younger people don't have the disposable income that older folks that like physical media do. I don't stream at all, unless you consider Dish cable service streaming. All my money goes to physical media. My wife wants to cut Dish entirely. That would put 100% of our movie spending into BR / 4k UHD BR. Heck, we never actually go to the movies either. I tend to vote with my pocketbook. I vote physical media.
Totally fair and a reasonable preference. That said, I doubt anyone growing up today will ever collect / buy physical media. It's kind of like the current broadcast TV model: It can't survive a world in which habits are changing so rapidly around it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post
Pure guessing on my part with no data to back it up - I'm going to say 40-45 years old is about the age preference for physical media being 50/50 in preference...and that number increases gradually as the age does. I'm 44 and only use physical media for any serious viewing (I have cable for everything else). A good friend of mine is 42 and only streams and another friend of mine is about 50% streaming and is 47 years old. Of course, none of them are using front projection like myself.
That's the start of a data set. Thanks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Peer View Post
With smaller ( than projection screens ) HDTV's, and further viewing distance, quality matters much less.
Again, suggesting a younger demo that watches video on phones/tablets/laptops may well not value quality soon (ever?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhdiab View Post
^ I still get my bluray discs from Netflix. What makes me sad is the knowledge that within a few years they will no longer mail discs. It will all be streaming and if I want discs I have to buy them (which I have no interest in).
Yes, this is a real concern. I'm surprised Netflix still mails discs. I'm confident they won't be adding UHD BluRay in any quantity (likely not at all).
Quote:
And the only reason I am totally fine waiting multiple days for the bluray vs streaming is for the quality both pq and audio. But like you I know nobody else with a HT setup and when I stream on my TV upstairs it does look pretty damn good so I get why people are fine with that option
[/quote]

I wish more people had HQ audio setups and big screens. But I understand every single trend is running against the former and there are many fixed barriers to the latter. I still believe in 10-20 years we'll have wall-sized screens that can be partly illuminated to allow smaller, daily viewing and a single-button press to movie viewing. But I'm not sure that those will be especially popular either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wco81 View Post

But you also have to deal with ISP caps.
Really? Comcast is up to 1 terabyte.

Charter/Time Warner is enjoined from data capping for 7 years.

FioS has no cap and doesn't seem to even send nastygrams until multiple TB have been used.

Uverse just switched to a 1 TB data cap, too.

All the next-gen fiber providers (the WaveG, Google Fiber, et al.) of the world have no caps.

Capping is a pretty big red herring that affects nearly no one.
sarahb75 likes this.

There's a saying about "everything in moderation". If only it was applied to well, you know...
rogo is offline  
post #4885 of 4969 Old 09-13-2016, 03:16 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mhdiab's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Anchorage, AK
Posts: 2,500
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)
Liked: 43
^ Are you calling us in Alaska "no one"


Data cap is very live and real here
rogo likes this.
mhdiab is offline  
post #4886 of 4969 Old 09-13-2016, 04:01 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
wco81's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 8,320
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2712 Post(s)
Liked: 1082
Even the kiddies now watching on phones will come to appreciate quality when they are in their 30s and 40s.

They will not go out as much and they'll have serious jobs and be tired when they get home. Then they'll get big screens, surround sound and disc players.

Hell they could pick up an old DVD player and some discs at a flea market ant it will be better than the video they watched on a phone.
wco81 is offline  
post #4887 of 4969 Old 09-13-2016, 04:48 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 32,172
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1901 Post(s)
Liked: 2206
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhdiab View Post
^ Are you calling us in Alaska "no one"
Great state, great people. The best people. Many people are saying it

Quote:
Data cap is very live and real here
Sorry to hear that. Mostly non-existent in the lower 48.

There's a saying about "everything in moderation". If only it was applied to well, you know...
rogo is offline  
post #4888 of 4969 Old 09-15-2016, 05:15 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Ron Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: SW Florida
Posts: 7,002
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 988 Post(s)
Liked: 996
Sony has announced their first Ultra HD Blu-ray player. It will coming out in the spring of next year. It is an ES series and will be marketed as a premium unit, but price not yet announced. I've posted info in my blog (link below) at Projector Reviews.


http://www.projectorreviews.com/home...po-2016-day-0/

Ron Jones
Blog + Reviews + Articles: projectorreviews.com
Ron Jones is offline  
post #4889 of 4969 Old 09-15-2016, 08:50 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
wco81's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 8,320
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2712 Post(s)
Liked: 1082
So probably around twice the price of the PS4 Pro?
wco81 is offline  
post #4890 of 4969 Old 09-15-2016, 11:40 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Selden Ball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 14,848
Mentioned: 45 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4823 Post(s)
Liked: 2874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Jones View Post
Sony has announced their first Ultra HD Blu-ray player. It will coming out in the spring of next year. It is an ES series and will be marketed as a premium unit, but price not yet announced. I've posted info in my blog (link below) at Projector Reviews.


http://www.projectorreviews.com/home...po-2016-day-0/
Quote:
Originally Posted by wco81 View Post
So probably around twice the price of the PS4 Pro?
My personal guess is that it's going to be significantly higher than the MSRP of their current top-of-the-line BD player, the UHP-H1 (~$350), possibly in the vicinity of $500. I'm surprised that the analog audio output is only stereo, though. Panasonic's UHD player has a multichannel analog audio output and lists for about $600.

Selden

Marantz SR7009 avr + MM9000 amp --> Atmos 7.1.4
Fronts=NHT 2.9+AC2, FH+TM=DefTech PM1000, LCR+TM amped
Selden Ball is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Digital Hi-End Projectors - $3,000+ USD MSRP

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off