Video: The Prospects for Next-Generation Media

[Audioholics]

<A href="http://www.hometheaterforum.com/cedia/index.html" target=_blank><IMG style="WIDTH: 125px; HEIGHT: 51px" alt=[htforum] hspace=10 src="http://www.audioholics.com/news/thumbs/htforum_th.gif" align=left border=0></A>Our Home Theater Alliance partner, Home Theater Forum uploaded a video conference from this year's CEDIA event entitled "Direct from Hollywood-The Prospects for Next-Generation Media". It's got some very interesting facts and opinions from industry insiders including Adrian Alperovich, executive vice president-international for Sony Pictures Home Entertainment; Patrick Fitzgerald, executive vice president of sales, distribution, and trade marketing for Buena Vista Home Entertainment; and Peter Staddon, executive vice president of marketing for Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment. Paul Gluckman, managing editor of Consumer Electronics Daily, served as moderator.

[Check Out the Videos]

 

[terror_beast]

There's one giant question that never seems to get asked:

Right now, it's so easy and cheap to copy DVD's as long as a person has a PC and a DVD burner. Broadband downloads aside, if I want a movie, I can rent it for $5 (or even cheaper from an online rental), buy a stack of recordable DVDs for $0.50 a piece and have that movie on DVD for a lot less than the retail price. I can then copy the copy that I made and give it to all my friends for the mere price of a DVD-R.
So let's say the DRM on HD-DVD/Blu-Ray actually gets it right and makes it near impossible for me to do the same thing with HD-DVD/Blu-Ray.
For a huge number of people, DVD quality is "good enough". Even for someone like me who really wants high def, for a lot of movies (comedies, some dramas, etc.) DVD quality is "good enough".
So the question is, why on earth would most people shell out $25-$35 for a HD-DVD or Blu-Ray disc when they can get a copy off a friend of a DVD for $0.50?

Unless DVDs are taken off the market (and clearly that is NOT the plan) I simply can't see the vast majority of people caring one little bit about HD-DVD or Blu-Ray. DVD quality is "good enough" for most people and it's super easy to copy and get for next to nothing.

What are people's thoughts?

t

 

[majorloser]

There's one giant question that never seems to get asked:

Right now, it's so easy and cheap to copy DVD's as long as a person has a PC and a DVD burner. Broadband downloads aside, if I want a movie, I can rent it for $5 (or even cheaper from an online rental), buy a stack of recordable DVDs for $0.50 a piece and have that movie on DVD for a lot less than the retail price. I can then copy the copy that I made and give it to all my friends for the mere price of a DVD-R.
So let's say the DRM on HD-DVD/Blu-Ray actually gets it right and makes it near impossible for me to do the same thing with HD-DVD/Blu-Ray.
For a huge number of people, DVD quality is "good enough". Even for someone like me who really wants high def, for a lot of movies (comedies, some dramas, etc.) DVD quality is "good enough".
So the question is, why on earth would most people shell out $25-$35 for a HD-DVD or Blu-Ray disc when they can get a copy off a friend of a DVD for $0.50?

Unless DVDs are taken off the market (and clearly that is NOT the plan) I simply can't see the vast majority of people caring one little bit about HD-DVD or Blu-Ray. DVD quality is "good enough" for most people and it's super easy to copy and get for next to nothing.

What are people's thoughts?

t

I would have to agree! I don't see where the real gains would show in most of the consumers homes. There are still quite a few consumers that don't own a HDTV much less a DVD players. A 480p picture upscaled to a 720p or 1080i is still quite a beautiful picture. I'm sure if you have a HUGE screen, more resolution would be good.

I have a few (???) of those DVD's you get from a friend (thanks, and you know who you are). The cost (minus time spent in a public institution) outways the resolution. The only question will have to do with audio soundtracks on future DVD's. Will the studios still give us the better soundtracks on DVD vs. HD formats? If we don't receive the better DTS or Dolby Digital soundtracks anymore the upgrade may become a must.

 

[Rowdy S13]

I have a very NooB question before I coment. From what Ive heard (and I admit Ive never looked into it) Blue-Ray and HD-DVD are gonna be seprate formats with seprate players and seprate discs? On another note its imposible to encode somthing that cant be un-encoded. All it takes is time.

Sean

 

[terror_beast]

HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are indeed seperate and incompatible formats. It's like VHS vs. Beta if you need a reference. Or DVD-Audio vs. SACD.

So what do we have? The vast majority of people do NOT own a high definition television. Sure, the market is growing, but the VAST majority of people still have a standard definition set. And the VAST majority of people do not have surround sound. And of the people who do have surround sound, no one (outside of a few technicians or really really rich people that I don't know about) has a receiver or pre-amp that can decode Dolby Digital TrueHD, Dolby Digital Plus or DTS-HD, which are the "high def" sound formats to go along with the high def picture. So even for the early adopters, there's going to be a waiting period until the new sound formats are supported in receivers and pre-amps. Furthermore, DD TrueHD, DD+ and DTS-HD all require more bandwidth than S/PDIF or optical offer, so the new recievers will have to have FireWire or HDMI. And for those who have receivers with HDMI already, I'm not sure if the current HDMI 1.1 spec will work. The new HDMI 1.2 spec really only adds SACD support. So we may need a 1.3 spec for DD TrueHD et al. And who knows if current 1.1 spec receivers can simply be upgraded, or if we'll need a whole new receiver!

What I'm getting at is this: in order to make use of the high definition picture and the new "high def" sound formats, the VAST majority of people would need a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD player, a new TV, 7 speakers and a subwoofer and a new receiver. That's a HELL of a lot more than what's needed to see that DVD is superior to VHS. Even on a standard def 27" TV using the speakers built into the TV, DVD is clearly superior to VHS in picture and sound quality. THAT'S why DVD has been such a huge success.

HD-DVD or Blu-Ray is a whole other ball game. A tremendous amount of equipment (and therefore money) is needed to really see or hear a difference from DVD.


And all of that is without even considering the confusion of having two seperate, incompatible competing formats!

I'm sorry to say, but I think MOST people (not us home theater nuts) are just going to say "why would I buy either of those? I've got a DVD player and it's fine!"

t

 

[Adam_G]

I for one would much rather spend $5-15.00 and get the original disc in the orginal packaging. That aside, if you watch the presentation the topic of will the increased quality be enough to get people to switch to the new format does come up, and that is where they are touting new interactivity that both formats will provide as a selling point. I don't think either format will be an instant sucess. It took DVD several years to break into the mainstream.

 

[Parker Clack]

There are several things that they have to address. Two that come to mind from the get go are.

First it has to have analog outputs off of any HiDef DVD player so that those people that have a monitor that is capable of HiDef but don't have DVI or HDMI will be able to use it. They cannot expect the people that have already bought a HiDef set to go out and buy another set just so they can use of of these new units. The decision to release the DVD players with only HDMI or DVI outputs is going to make it fail right out of the box.

Second, they have to keep the price of the discs in line with what they are now. If you suddenly have to pay an extra premium amount for a HiDef disc vs the same thing in 480p they are never going to get the general public to buy into it and we aren't going to all of a sudden give up our current libraries to dip yet again into buying a title that already looks damn good on our sets.

Capability with current displays to render the full benefit from the format without having to change out everything yet again and price of the software are going to be key in the success of HiDef DVD.

Clint and Gene thanks for posting this conference for us. Our thanks also goes out to Adam Gregorich for putting this together for us.

Parker

 

[terror_beast]

To be honest, I think this is a case where Hollywood actually wants this format more than the consumers. The reps from Hollywood talk about the consumer demand and consumer desire for HD content, but frankly, that just isn't the case. Sure, there are some 7-10 million people who have HD sets and want HD content, but then there are some 225 million or so who don't have an HD set and most of whom have never even heard of Blu-ray or HD-DVD.
Hollywood wants HD discs because DVD's copy protection is cracked. I think it's as simple as that. As I said earlier, for about $5 I can rent any movie and make a copy of it for myself and as many other people as I want so long as I have a PC and a DVD burner.
Now if DVDs only cost $5 instead of the inflated prices still at retail, I'd likely buy the DVD just for the cover. But as it stands, it's just far too easy and tempting to pay all of $0.50 for a DVD-R copy.
Hollywood and the music industry spend so much time talking about how piracy is hurting them. And yet every single year, they make more revenue and profit than the previous year. Maybe if I didn't keep hearing about the 20 million dollar plus payouts to celebs and music stars; maybe if Hollywood producers weren't making 30 million plus a year; maybe if the greed and opulence weren't so obvious and thrust into our faces, I'd feel the slightest bit bad for them.
Hollywood and the music industry are now reaping what they have sown. They've ripped off consumers and then thrown it in our faces for so long and now they are crying because consumers have found a way to pay them only $5 per movie rather than $20.
It's crap because there are true artists out there, who are not doing it for the money and are not trying to rip off the public for no other reason than greed. THEY deserve to be paid for their labor and their talent, but no one needs to be paid 20 million dollars.
There's no fear that Hollywood or the music industry is going to disappear. But there might be the slightest chance that they won't get to rip us off quite as much any more. Buy a CD with one good track and 12 crap pieces of filler for $12? No thanks. Should I get it for absolutely nothing? No, of course not. But $1 per song? That's a bit more reasonable.
Same with movies. $10 at the theater and $20 for the DVD? Too much. Should I get to see it for absolutely nothing? No. Drop the price to $10 and $10 and I'd probably not complain. Drop it to $8 and $8 and you'd see me spending a lot more over all because the value would be there. And I wouldn't be so tempted to burn a copy for next to nothing.
Blu-ray and HD-DVD are really more about maintaining the ability to continue ripping people off than they are about meeting any sort of consumer demand. Thankfully, they're doing such a piss poor job that it looks like it's going to bite them straight in the ***.
Greed deserves to be punished - especially when the spoils of that greed are shoved in the faces of all of us who were ripped off to feed that greed. We shouldn't pay absolutely nothing for music or movies. That clearly isn't fair. Fairness should be the goal. Good value for our money. If studios make less money, then pay the gaudy celebs only $5 million instead of $20! The only reason the celebs get so much is because THEY used to get ripped off. It all comes back to greed, corruption and mistrust. Consumers finally have a weapon and a way to fight back. Maybe the artists will get to shine again - that would be ideal.

t

 

[goodman]

First it has to have analog outputs off of any HiDef DVD player so that those people that have a monitor that is capable of HiDef but don't have DVI or HDMI will be able to use it. They cannot expect the people that have already bought a HiDef set to go out and buy another set just so they can use of of these new units. The decision to release the DVD players with only HDMI or DVI outputs is going to make it fail right out of the box.
Parker

I think they're going to have the analog outputs. The problem is that they will only allow 480p through the analog output, so for those of us without DVI or HDMI inputs on our displays, there's no point in getting an HD player. Unless, of course, someone finds a way to "trick" the player into thinking it's connected, and copy-protected by HDCP, to a DVI or HDMI input.

 

[Parker Clack]

I have said for years the way to fight piracy is to keep the price of the product low enough so no one is tempted to go out and buy all the other equipment and software to make their own copies.

CDs are a perfect example of how a product is way over priced. Like you said why should I pay $12 or more to play one song on the whole CD. The music industry *****es about piracy but the truth is they aren't putting out a product that is worth the money they are asking for it.

DVDs as priced low enough, the majority of the time, to justify what they ask for them. I would just as soon pay the $10 to $15 they charge for a DVD any day over paying even more to see a movie in a theater that is out of control with noise, rude people and way over expensive concessions. Why would I want to put myself through any of that when I can watch the same movie with extra features, pay less money and do this all in the comfort of my own home.

If Hi Def DVD hits the market at a premium over a standard DVD just because the picture might look better they aren't going to sell very many of them. The only real benefactors of a large Hi Def image are going to be those people that have a front projection system that can handle the high res of the software. I personally don't see people with rear projection Hi Def sets that can even handle a 720p or greater image getting all that excited about the picture vs. what they already have.

 

[MDS]

CDs are a perfect example of how a product is way over priced. Like you said why should I pay $12 or more to play one song on the whole CD. The music industry *****es about piracy but the truth is they aren't putting out a product that is worth the money they are asking for it.

For the most part, I agree with that statement; however, just to play devil's advocate it isn't really a viable arugment to say that a CD is overpriced because it only has one good song. There will be plenty of people that like more than just one song on the disc and which one of those songs that people consider to be good will differ from person to person too.

Even if you get a CD where you like the majority of the songs, they are quite pricey. Not too long ago, there was an announcement that Universal records was reducing the wholesale price of CDs and that Best Buy and others were going to pass the savings on to the public. That agreement lasted about two weeks. So now instead of lowering prices, the record labels are seeking to lower their costs while keeping the prices high. That's why we now have this crap called 'digipak'. If you haven't seen them, it's where they get rid of the jewel case and give us a flimsy one piece cardboard container with the plastic cd insert glued to the cardboard. Handle the digipak a few times and the cardboard starts to rip and degrade quickly. The price of the CD is still in the $15 range, but the packaging now costs 1 cent apiece instead of 5 cents - a big boost to profits for the distributor.

Music has gone down hill since the mid '90s. That is because the industry has shifted to promoting 'singles' artists that have more aesthetic appeal (ie. pretty girls and boys) than musical talent. Long gone are the days of the superbands with careers spanning thirty years or longer. Ironically, that is the reason for the argument that CDs are too high priced for just one song. There are now only a handful of new artists that I actually like and think may have a shot at a long career.

DVDs as priced low enough, the majority of the time, to justify what they ask for them.

I don't agree with that. I'm definitely in the minority here when it comes to movies. I just don't see the allure of collecting movies. How many times can you watch the same movie? Most movies are just so-so and once you've seen it once, that is enough and you could make the same argument that it is senseless to pay $15-$20 for a one shot viewing.

 

[Parker Clack]

Most movies are just so-so and once you've seen it once, that is enough and you could make the same argument that it is senseless to pay $15-$20 for a one shot viewing.

Yes, but I get to see it my own house instead. And by the time you pay for concessions or you like the wife and kids with you you will end up paying a lot more than the $15-$20 for that one shot viewing.

I don't collect everything. Just those movies that impressed me enough in the theater to want to watch it more than once.

 

[supervij]

How many times can you watch the same movie?

How many times can you listen to the same CD? read the same book? eat the same meal?

I don't know about you, but if a movie is really good, then you're gonna get something out of it each time you watch it. Like when you listen to a really good song, you get something out of it each time you listen to it. Same thing with a well written book. Just because it's a movie doesn't mean you should experience it only once. I have books I've read a dozen times, and each time I notice something I hadn't before. Why can't a movie be the same way?

cheers,
supervij

 

[MDS]

Movies can be the same way, supervij - just not for me. Like I said, I'm definitely in the minority here when it comes to movies. I will never stop collecting music, but buying movies just doesn't appeal to me as much.

 

[supervij]

Hey MDS -- it wasn't meant as harsh as it may have sounded (read?).

cheers,
supervij

 

[MDS]

No offense was taken supervij. I didn't think your statement was harsh.