When will standard DVD go extinct?

[JerryLove]

Playing a well mastered DVD on my PS3 gives me a better result than my HD broadcast stations or the vast majority of streams. As long as DVDs remain less expensive than Blu-Ray, including looking at the used market (where I do most of my DVD buying), I'll gladly run both.

There are some *major* difference between the DVD-BluRay and VHS-DVD conversion.

- One player can play both. I'm not trying to maintain some old, out-of-date hardware.

- DVD does not degrade like VHS did. The media has a long life both on my shelf and in the used market.

- In most cases, DVD is "good enough" (and much of what I buy isn't HD anyway).

- Most people (me included) are not running 7.1 or 9.2 sound systems. The move from Pro-Logic tapes to 5.1 DVDs was more signifigant for the home user than this move is.

New DVDs will stop being made when the cost of making BD is the same as DVD and when there is no perceived loss of revenue (market) related to player penetration. (not to mention the non-pro market. are you setup to film your family gathering in HD and master onto BD?)

 

[bogrod]

I would almost be tempted to agree with you on this one if it weren't for one thing (well, OK I guess for a few things):
1) Streaming video will not get to the level of BD quality (or even full DVD in most cases) for many, many years in the US. In certain places in the world where fiber to the doorstep is common - then certainly. However, our infrastructure here has largely stalled and I don't see the cable companies (the primary driver ATM) working hard and investing billions so their customers can reduce their service levels.
2) Although it can be argued (and was by davidtwotrees and others) that the majority of people don't care and don't buy movies - I think that will change dramatically as HDTV adoption continues to expand and as those HDTV continue to produce a more and more unsatisfying picutre with SD sources.
3) Immigration - yep, you did read that correctly. It is my theory, that as we have more and more immigration from Mexico (both legal and illegal) the movie theater itself will be going the way of the dodo rather than DVD/BD. The reasoning is simply one of cost. Although the statistically 'traditional' American family is one with 1.5 children - the 'new' American family (recent immigrants) is much larger. As inflation continues to show it's head in the movie theatre, I think more and more people will rent/buy movies simply out of economics. Taking a family of 6 to a movie in the theater = ~3 BDs in your home collection (plus change) - or 10 DVD's if you buy from the bargain bins.
4) As more and more demands are placed on an inadequate Internet infrastructure - service levels will further decline. Already I have outages all the time now that I didn't before - and as soon as people come home from work the bandwidth goes to hell as they all fire up YouTube and Netflix. This will only continue - eventually sending those same people looking for a nearline solution that doesn't lag, doesn't skip and isn't dependent on a subscription that seems to be changing every 6 months lately.

JMHO - probably wrong on most of that. However, I can say personally - no matter how much more it is... I will not purchase any DVDs that are also available on BD. Why bother unless it's waaaay cheaper. If a DVD of a movie that sells for $20 on BD is only $4 - then I might just get the DVD (provided it's a movie I don't care that much about). If I'm only going to save a few dollars... then it's a no-brainer for me.

I agree pretty much with what you said above. In my first post, I was speaking more to the future that when, yes, the infrastructure for fiber is in place, downloads would become commonplace and relatively issue-free.

It's interesting when you post about the cost of going to the theater, versus purchasing a film. I can drop anywhere from $20-30 (with concession purchases) when just taking myself and my daughter to see a movie. These days, I usually wait for something interesting to come to IMAX, as if I am going to drop that kind of money, I feel more satisfied shelling out a few more $ for a top-notch presentation.

 

[Duff man]

I mean, seriously... If you already own a Blu-ray player, and you have a choice between the $14.00 Blu-ray or the $14.00 DVD... which are you going to choose?

That is the magic point when DVD suddenly no longer makes sense to buy and DVD sales will drop significantly on new releases.

Don't forget the impact that DVR's have had. For most average consumers, the increased picture quality is not important enough to replace their collection of regular movies with Blu-Ray. Add the fact that now people have HDTV and DVR's and can now record movies and save them in the hard drive...for many of those people, that's good enough. They don't need three different formats for their movies.

 

[sholling]

I agree pretty much with what you said above. In my first post, I was speaking more to the future that when, yes, the infrastructure for fiber is in place, downloads would become commonplace and relatively issue-free.

Keep in mind that fiber to the home (which I have) is only part of the equation. The bandwidth to support high-def video feeds with 5.1 lossless audio is bloody expensive. I have a 35/35Mb fiber connection that tests out at 35+ and there are sites (not Netflix) that are completely unwatchable in 480p with mono audio because they can't afford enough bandwidth and the routing bottlenecks between their site and my ISP sucks. Watching 5 minutes of buffering for every minute of video gets old. On top of that you have companies like AT&T and most cable companies that operate on a business model that is more short-term profit based than long-term investment in infrastructure based, and an attitude that merchants are going to have to pay twice (internet bandwidth to their own ISP and tribute to the customer's ISP) to do business with the ISP's customers.

 

[jostenmeat]

Don't forget the impact that DVR's have had. For most average consumers, the increased picture quality is not important enough to replace their collection of regular movies with Blu-Ray. Add the fact that now people have HDTV and DVR's and can now record movies and save them in the hard drive...for many of those people, that's good enough. They don't need three different formats for their movies.

Lots of people burn BDs on to a hard drive too.

As with cd's in the 2ch stereo world, I believe BDs are the desired format to obtain as a source, but that the ideal playback method would be via server/harddrive. I don't need the servers (mostly a time and money thing), but it would understandably be ideal for most people.

Anyways, hard drives and BDs are not mutually exclusive. You can rent BDs, burn them, and you only have one format on hand, as you might say.

 

[jostenmeat]

Playing a well mastered DVD on my PS3 gives me a better result than my HD broadcast stations or the vast majority of streams. As long as DVDs remain less expensive than Blu-Ray, including looking at the used market (where I do most of my DVD buying), I'll gladly run both.

A good HD broadcast in my light controlled dedicated theater totally annihilates any DVD. Not even close, are you kidding me. My HD broadcasts are had for free, via OTA.

There are some *major* difference between the DVD-BluRay and VHS-DVD conversion.

There sure are, and here are a couple more:

There is a greater percentage increase in horizontal lines of resolution between Bluray and DVD, than there is between DVD and VHS.

Bluray is the first video format for us that offers lossless mch. The impact for me is that for the first time in my life am I watching classical music concerts in mch. With any* DVD ever that I have watched, the 2.0 PCM track was always superior to the lossy mch with concert discs.

 

[JerryLove]

A good HD broadcast in my light controlled dedicated theater totally annihilates any DVD. Not even close, are you kidding me. My HD broadcasts are had for free, via OTA.

No, not kidding at all. I was reminded about LotR was on TV (TNT-HD I believe) and I caught myself watching it. When the commercial break came, I grabbed my DVD copy and threw it in. I was impressed with the improvement in picture quality.

There is a greater percentage increase in horizontal lines of resolution between Bluray and DVD, than there is between DVD and VHS.

Sure, but do they matter?

If I had a ten-million pixel format and I offered a two-billion pixel format that would be a bigger increase (as a percentage or linearly) than from an old B&W TV to HD, and yet the subjective improvement would be far smaller.

Image resolution always faces the issue of diminishing returns. Further: how much better will my MASH or Twilight Zone images come out? One cannot create new information.

I think there's too much emphasis on pixel count. There was/is in cameras as well. I have a 6MP digital camera that I would not dream of trading for whatever the bottom of the 10MP cameras are now. Why? Because 6MP is more than enough for the size prints I am making, and I would not giver up my lenses, optical zoom, and optical stabilization for more pixels.

Similarly, I'll take the DVD of Fifth-Element against the first BluRay version any day. The much better transfer outweighs any "advantage" of putting out a low-quality resolution to a screen with a lot of pixels (the later edition of the BD is better). Similarly, I would not pay $10 extra to get 1080p over 720p on, say, a 27" TV I was going to mount on a wall.

No. DVDs will die not because of an advantage for BD, but because of a lack of an advantage for DVD. Right now the DVD advantages are:
- They are cheaper.
- There are more on the used market (which are also cheaper)
- The players are cheaper.
- Most people already have a player.
- There are more movies on them.
- More software will edit DVD-quality.
- DVD burners are cheap
- More software will output to DVD.
- More computers are capable of doing reasonable-speed editing and compiling in SD.

Bluray is the first video format for us that offers lossless mch. The impact for me is that for the first time in my life am I watching classical music concerts in mch. With any* DVD ever that I have watched, the 2.0 PCM track was always superior to the lossy mch with concert discs.

You aren't really having a debate on the question at hand.

You seem to be answering "which characteristics will make me want bluray's over DVDs in some situations" when the question was about DVD obsolesce.

I would further point out the extreme advantage of DVD-A over CD, and the continued existence of CDs (and CD-based download-able music).

 

[jostenmeat]

No, not kidding at all. I was reminded about LotR was on TV (TNT-HD I believe) and I caught myself watching it. When the commercial break came, I grabbed my DVD copy and threw it in. I was impressed with the improvement in picture quality.

Sure, but do they matter?

Ah, so it is TNT with an unnamed provider (who I am guessing is compressing the crap out of your signal).

By definition HDTV is superior to DVD (1080i/720p vs 480i). I can find a bluray that looks worse than a DVD, but I will never say that DVD is a superior format to bluray.

If I had a ten-million pixel format and I offered a two-billion pixel format that would be a bigger increase (as a percentage or linearly) than from an old B&W TV to HD, and yet the subjective improvement would be far smaller.

Well, we're not talking billions yet. I'll give you some perspective, in my theater, with a not abnormal 126" screen, not only am I beyond what 1080p can give me, last I looked, I need even better than 1440p.

Image resolution always faces the issue of diminishing returns. Further: how much better will my MASH or Twilight Zone images come out? One cannot create new information.

It depends on the condition of the original master/source, and what was used to capture the material.

You aren't really having a debate on the question at hand.

I sort of am, as an audioholic, because in the case of video concerts, VHS and DVD were identical for me* in that they were, at best, in stereo.

When I combine the above experience with a +600% increase in resolution, DVDs to me are obsolete. In my case, they have been obsolete since 2007.

I would further point out the extreme advantage of DVD-A over CD, and the continued existence of CDs (and CD-based download-able music).

You aren't really having a debate on the question at hand?

 

[Duff man]

I sort of am, as an audioholic, because in the case of video concerts, VHS and DVD were identical for me* in that they were, at best, in stereo.

When I combine the above experience with a +600% increase in resolution, DVDs to me are obsolete. In my case, they have been obsolete since 2007.

That may be true, but, as an audioholic, you only make up a very small percentage of the market. You are vastly outnumbered by people with 42" - 50" flat screens and a collection of DVDs that they still listen to through the TV speakers. For most of them, the resolution on a DVD is just fine.

 

[jostenmeat]

That may be true, but, as an audioholic, you only make up a very small percentage of the market. You are vastly outnumbered by people with 42" - 50" flat screens and a collection of DVDs that they still listen to through the TV speakers. For most of them, the resolution on a DVD is just fine.

Once they sit any closer than 15' from a 50", they are already beyond what 480 can give them. Point taken though, even if previous discussion highlights other relevant arguments, namely those offered by BMX.

Again, from my "rare situation", I need well beyond what BD's rez can give me.

 

[JerryLove]

Ah, so it is TNT with an unnamed provider (who I am guessing is compressing the crap out of your signal).

Time-Warner.

But that is exactly one of the competitors, and one of the "things to kill DVD" being discussed. DVDs offer an advantage over many streams, including ones which fit the technical requirements for HD.

If I *solely* look at BD, and exclude mastering problems then yes, they are at least the same quality as DVD (better if the original material allows it); in which case we go back to the other advantages (price and availability) DVD has over BD, and the other differences (longevity and sufficiency) that this transition has compared to the VHS-DVD one.

By definition HDTV is superior to DVD (1080i/720p vs 480i). I can find a bluray that looks worse than a DVD, but I will never say that DVD is a superior format to bluray.

To one definition of "superior" yes. The resolution and storage are higher.

Well, we're not talking billions yet. I'll give you some perspective, in my theater, with a not abnormal 126" screen, not only am I beyond what 1080p can give me, last I looked, I need even better than 1440p.

And my dad looks at a 34" from 12ft away with post-stroke eyes. You might imagine he doesn't care about 1080p.

I sort of am, as an audioholic, because in the case of video concerts, VHS and DVD were identical for me* in that they were, at best, in stereo.

That's a mastering issue. As you are well aware, DVDs support several 5.1 formats.

You aren't really having a debate on the question at hand?

Am I not?

How long do you think DVD will last? 2 years? 5 years?

I'm pretty sure I am discussing the criteria used to evaluate the likely longevity of DVD as a significantly-in-use format.

 

[jostenmeat]

If TW was my only available source, I'd feel terrible. They are the worst cable provider I have ever seen. However, many shows are available to rent, anyhow, HBO, Discovery, National Geographic, cooking shows, History, primetime shows, etc. In addition, you can just add a cheap antenna, hook it up, and get un-re-compressed OTA. Myself, I am in the middle of watching the John Adams mini series from Netflix on BD. Yes, that is what I do for my "HDTV", I use an antenna, rent shows, and buy shows (the last I can recall being the Life documentary). I host NFL tomorrow and for the Superbowl. I will use a free OTA signal, and it will look better than any of my friends' sat or cable that who knows how much they pay for.

Anyways, if I see one more thread like this created, I think I'm going to scream. I know the OP started a thread about whether bluray is a ripoff or not, just less than a year ago.

In that thread, there is quite a bit of talk about rentals. I used to pay $6 a month for two bluray rentals, for a while there. I recently bumped up my subscription, something like $20 for 2 at a time unlimited, and I'm paying only $2 per so far (because I'm trying to get my money's worth). I mentioned Midnight Sensi in that thread, because he might have bought like only one BD ever, yet has reviewed more BDs than the great majority of us. I know BMX rents or rented a whole lot as well.

 

[JerryLove]

I have Netflix rentals which I very much enjoy (many are available on DVD and not BD). I use Netflix streaming, which again I enjoy, though in many (not all) cases, the local DVD has a better picture quality than the netflix stream.

I have an HD antenna attached: but except for the Simpsons, there's no much I watch on those channels.

But even that is me... I'm into this stuff. My co-woker who I car-pool with just got his first HD television over Christmas. It's still the only HD TV in his house. What will compel him to go buy (more expensive) BD players when his DVD players are working fine, or spend more money per-movie to get the BD releases to put on his SD televisions?

My parents: HDTV, but no BD player. My inlaws, SD-tv and no BD player, my co-worker: just got and HD-TV and no BD player. My best friend: Mix of HD and SD TV and no BD player (heck, 1/3rd of TVs in my house are still SD).

As for me: Most of what I buy new is BD now... but with a few exceptions, I have no plans to replace my existing DVDs with their BD counterparts.

So when will DVD go away? Not terribly soon I think.

 

[BMXTRIX]

Don't forget the impact that DVR's have had. For most average consumers, the increased picture quality is not important enough to replace their collection of regular movies with Blu-Ray. Add the fact that now people have HDTV and DVR's and can now record movies and save them in the hard drive...for many of those people, that's good enough. They don't need three different formats for their movies.

DVRs are what truly buried the VHS and made the DVD-R a almost non-existent product outside the PC.

But, it has no bearing, whatsoever, on DVD vs. BD.

Likewise, existing collections I don't think in this discussion, are relevant. Or perhaps they are. I mean, I'm certainly not going to replace my 300+ disc DVD collection with Blu-ray. But, all new films I will exclusively buy on Blu-ray even for 5-10 bucks more.

Yet, in a few years or so, as I said, when BD players are in tons of homes, and BD production costs, and retail pricing is the same, and BD is blowing the pants off of DVD, then DVD will be phased out. But, it will NEVER be phased out of existing collections like VHS has been. It will just disappear from store shelves.

So, if your arguement is that DVD will never go away because people have existing collections, then by that arguement, VHS hasn't gone away... or 8-track players haven't gone away. Which I don't think is what this discussion is about. I think it is more a 'when will DVD production cease' - and when I say I believe 6+ years, I don't mean 6 years. I mean AT LEAST 6 years of serious DVD production before we may have some idea where the market really stands. Perhaps in 6 years digital downloads will be so pervasive that THEY will replace the DVD and BD will just sit as a niche videophile format.

I'm not giving any guarantee that BD is truly going to be the more popular replacement to DVD, but I don't think, with pricing vs. production costs constantly ebbing towards each other, that DVD can truly have a fixed place to remain forever.

I know that except for those kids shows that aren't available on Blu-ray, DVD is not a part of our buying or renting pattern at all. So, mine is one of the first which can declare that BD is by far the preferred format for viewing. It'll just be a while before the majority is on board with that way of doing things.

 

[Pyrrho]

Time-Warner.
...

In that case, you are not comparing BROADCAST TV at all, but are comparing cable with your DVDs. Cable companies typically compress the video and audio, and even if the original broadcast was HD, that does not mean that the cable company is actually giving you HD. I have stayed in hotels and seen the crap that people get with cable. I watch free broadcast HDTV (using an antenna) and it looks vastly better than DVD. Of course, I also can see SDTV via broadcasts, and they do not look better than DVD.

 

[BMXTRIX]

In that case, you are not comparing BROADCAST TV at all, but are comparing cable with your DVDs. Cable companies typically compress the video and audio, and even if the original broadcast was HD, that does not mean that the cable company is actually giving you HD. I have stayed in hotels and seen the crap that people get with cable. I watch free broadcast HDTV (using an antenna) and it looks vastly better than DVD. Of course, I also can see SDTV via broadcasts, and they do not look better than DVD.

Worth noting that most hotels do not just 'pass on' a cable feed from a cable provider to a room, but they modulate the HDTV onto specific channels for that hotel and create their own 'special' feed of programming. This is why they can offer their local Video on Demand lineup and stuff. So, what you see at a hotel is likely not at all representational of what they may actually be receiving at their equipment location in the hotel.

I've done direct comparisons to over-the-air, cable, and DirecTV, and while over-the-air did tend to look just a bit better, it wasn't night and day between the other two. Interestingly, HBO on cable looked BETTER than HBO on DirecTV with the boxes I was using when I did the testing. So, while OTA, if possible, may look best, it doesn't automatically mean that cable looks bad. Everyone really needs to look at reviews in their local area. And of course, finding a HD OTA tuner isn't really a snap to do.

 

[JerryLove]

No, not kidding at all. I was reminded about LotR was on TV (TNT-HD I believe)

In that case, you are not comparing BROADCAST TV at all, but are comparing cable with your DVDs.

TNT is not available over-the-air. That I was watching Cable, Fiber, or Satellite was pretty obvious... that and the fact I never said "broadcast"

Cable companies typically compress the video and audio, and even if the original broadcast was HD, that does not mean that the cable company is actually giving you HD.

Yes I know it's compressed. Yes, I know that's much of the problem with the picture. No, that does not make it "not HD", as HD is as resolution that says nothing about the quality of the image appearing at that resolution.

I have stayed in hotels and seen the crap that people get with cable. I watch free broadcast HDTV (using an antenna) and it looks vastly better than DVD. Of course, I also can see SDTV via broadcasts, and they do not look better than DVD.

SDTV is no longer broadcast by requirement of the FCC. As I mentioned, I have an antenna and do get HDTV stations over it. The quality depends on the source material and transfer. I've seen excellent and I've seen poor.

 

[Pyrrho]

... That I was watching Cable, Fiber, or Satellite was pretty obvious... that and the fact I never said "broadcast"

...

From your earlier post:

Playing a well mastered DVD on my PS3 gives me a better result than my HD broadcast stations or the vast majority of streams. ...

Emphasis added.

 

[PENG]

I have virtually stopped buying DVD in recent months but of the people I know, that is, friends and relatives, 99% of them have no desire to buy BR whatsoever regardless of price. When I asked them, their answers are typically one of the following:

- They look the same on my TV set (those who own CRT or <50" screens).
- Yes they look better but DVDs are good enough and I already have a DVD player.

I have also seen people replacing their expensive when new DVD players with new $29.99 to $59.99 ones without even considering buying a $89.99 BD player. Very strange but true.

 

[JerryLove]

From your earlier post:

Emphasis added.

I stand corrected.

OTOH, I have seen some pretty poor masters used for sources on broadcast TV as well.