Should the remastered episodes be released on DVD?

[The Laughing Vulcan]

I have a Blu-ray Player...

I have four DVD players, and not enough access to the HD TV... But I'm speaking generally, not personally, as Blu-ray saturation still isn't sufficient enough to warrant Blu-ray only releases. Most everything that comes out on Blu-ray is available on DVD, and TNG's remaster is pretty rare in that it's Blu-ray exclusive at this time.

EDIT: Just been listening to an anime podcast from a UK anme distributor, and at around the halfway mark, there's some conversation about Blu-rays and DVD, and an interesting statistic is that even in first world Japan, Blu-rays will sell only 30% of the numbers that DVDs sell. Sony wanting a licencing chunk of every BD disc manufactured is slowing the proliferation of the medium.

I would never have thought that a physical home medium would be in competition with high speed broadband and subscription based streaming services. I guess another related question is if the remastered episodes on Netflix yet?

What was the market saturation like when it was DVD vs VHS? It took several years for DVD to become dominant over CHS. With BR vs DVD however it is different whilst there is an improvement in picture quality with BR, for many DVD is good enough. So BR is finding it harder to establish itself than DVD had over VHS.

I remember BR only having at most a couple of metre's or so in shops a few years back now they can have 4 or 5 times that. Whilst at the same time the space given to DVD has shrunk.

I remember it took a lot longer for DVD to become established. I was collecting VHS up to 2000, and five years before that there was a small DVD shelf in HMV Central London which had about 30 or so titles. For those first five years, the shelf space only doubled year on year, while the majority of the shop floor remained devoted to VHS. 2000 was the tipping point though, as all of a sudden, every main stream title was released on both formats, and people began upgrading their collections in earnest. A couple of years later, the situation had reversed, and VHS was a small corner of the shop with about 500 or so titles, and everything else was DVD.

This was consumer driven though. From day one with Blu-ray, every main stream title has been released on both formats, and in some cases in exclusive Blu-ray DVD combos requiring fans to buy both. It's been an industry led change, and while most of the high street video shops have gone, we're still only five years into the cycle and supermarkets devote about a third of their home entertainment shelf space to Blu-ray, far ahead of the same situation with DVD and VHS.

 

[Nacluv]

What was the market saturation like when it was DVD vs VHS? It took several years for DVD to become dominant over CHS. With BR vs DVD however it is different whilst there is an improvement in picture quality with BR, for many DVD is good enough. So BR is finding it harder to establish itself than DVD had over VHS.

That's why I still think that Bluray will not (at least not for a very, very long time) replace DVD as ubiquitously as DVD replaced VHS. There's just way too much they have in common. The picture is the only difference between these while the differences between DVDs and VHS are huge.

Sometimes a Blu-ray can just be superfluous and unnecessary. I've really tried to understand why people think it's such a huge difference but I just don't get it no matter how much I try and no matter how much I watch my friends' BDs on their HD TV. I couldn't really care less for the higher definition and the augmented sharpness and contrast.

 

[Nacluv]

I remember it took a lot longer for DVD to become established.

That's because DVD was a whole new format. Bluray is not. It's just DVD with slightly improved picture. People have become used to DVD now.

The process of DVD to VHS and the process of DVD to BD are incomparable. It's like collating the discordances between MS-DOS and Windows to the discrepancies of Vista and Win7.

 

[BillJ]

It's just DVD with slightly improved picture.

No matter how many times people say this it simply isn't true and the numbers back it up.

* A widescreen DVD puts 345,600 (720 x 480) pixels on the screen, while a widescreen Blu-ray puts 2,073,600 (1920 x 1080) pixels on the screen. With a proper source, the amount of detail in a Blu-ray picture is astounding when compared to DVD.

Then add to the fact that Blu-ray has deeper colors, better audio and interactive features, I'd say the jump from DVD to Blu-ray is far greater than the jump from VHS to DVD. It's non-sense that people try to equate DVD and Blu-ray simply because they're both disc based formats.

 

[Nacluv]

It's just DVD with slightly improved picture.

No matter how many times people say this it simply isn't true and the numbers back it up.

* A widescreen DVD puts 345,600 (720 x 480) pixels on the screen, while a widescreen Blu-ray puts 2,073,600 (1920 x 1080) pixels on the screen. With a proper source, the amount of detail in a Blu-ray picture is astounding when compared to DVD.

Then add to the fact that Blu-ray has deeper colors, better audio and interactive features, I'd say the jump from DVD to Blu-ray is far greater than the jump from VHS to DVD. It's non-sense that people try to equate DVD and Blu-ray simply because they're both disc based formats.

It seems we're talking about different things. You seem to talk mostly about graphics and hardware. When I say that the difference between DVD and VHS is larger, I'm talking about the advantages of different language options, chapters, more bonus material, menus which allows you to choose one specific episode without being forced to fast-forward 3 other episodes to get to it.

I'm not trying to equate them. I'm just saying that since they both are disc based formats, they both have more in common with each other than VHS. The jump between what you can do with a VHS and what you can do with a DVD is greater than the jump between what you can do with a DVD and what you can do with Blu-ray.

And I agree that statement was a bit harsh. However, it is essentially right that Blu-ray is only DVD with improved graphics. I don't know why I said "slightly improved" though but I guess it was part of my attempt to depreciate Blu-ray.


And those of you who read my posts, you have to remember that I have low demands regarding picture because the difference between DVD and Blu-ray does nothing for me. If the print is good, that's enough to do it justice on DVD.

I do understand and see why Blu-ray is popular and I have nothing against it.

I just personally think that at this time, it's a distraction to the industry, and there WILL be more time and effort spent to upgrade movies rather than releasing that which has not ever been released on disc before, or just had very limited releases with very limited language options.

Sure, all the Hollywood flicks have already been released and there's nothing else to do with it, but now, this trend is also infecting the smaller distribution companies who are now focusing more on upgrading their former releases, rather than releasing movies who have never seen the light of DVD/BD (or even VHS).

 

[BillJ]

It's just DVD with slightly improved picture.

No matter how many times people say this it simply isn't true and the numbers back it up.

* A widescreen DVD puts 345,600 (720 x 480) pixels on the screen, while a widescreen Blu-ray puts 2,073,600 (1920 x 1080) pixels on the screen. With a proper source, the amount of detail in a Blu-ray picture is astounding when compared to DVD.

Then add to the fact that Blu-ray has deeper colors, better audio and interactive features, I'd say the jump from DVD to Blu-ray is far greater than the jump from VHS to DVD. It's non-sense that people try to equate DVD and Blu-ray simply because they're both disc based formats.

It seems we're talking about different things. You seem to talk mostly about graphics and hardware. When I say that the difference between DVD and VHS is larger, I'm talking about the advantages of different language options, chapters, more bonus material, menus which allows you to choose one specific episode without being forced to fast-forward 3 other episodes to get to it.

I'm not trying to equate them. I'm just saying that since they both are disc based formats, they both have more in common with each other than VHS. The jump between what you can do with a VHS and what you can do with a DVD is greater than the jump between what you can do with a DVD and what you can do with Blu-ray.

And I agree that statement was a bit harsh. However, it is essentially right that Blu-ray is only DVD with improved graphics. I don't know why I said "slightly improved" though but I guess it was part of my attempt to depreciate Blu-ray.


And those of you who read my posts, you have to remember that I have low demands regarding picture because the difference between DVD and Blu-ray does nothing for me. If the print is good, that's enough to do it justice on DVD.

I do understand and see why Blu-ray is popular and I have nothing against it.

I just personally think that at this time, it's a distraction to the industry, and there WILL be more time and effort spent to upgrade movies rather than releasing that which has not ever been released on disc before, or just had very limited releases with very limited language options.

Sure, all the Hollywood flicks have already been released and there's nothing else to do with it, but now, this trend is also infecting the smaller distribution companies who are now focusing more on upgrading their former releases, rather than releasing movies who have never seen the light of DVD/BD (or even VHS).

Fair enough.

But I wish all Hollywood was doing was releasing previous home video releases as I've been waiting for a Blu-ray of Drowning Mona since the format was in its infancy.

 

[Trek Survivor]

I remember it took a lot longer for DVD to become established. I was collecting VHS up to 2000, and five years before that there was a small DVD shelf in HMV Central London which had about 30 or so titles. For those first five years, the shelf space only doubled year on year, while the majority of the shop floor remained devoted to VHS.

Don't mean to doubt you, but you may want to double-check your dates.

DVD was NOT around in 1995!!

The first DVD discs were released, here in the UK, in 1998 (like you say, with only minimal shelf space). It only took 2 or 3 years for DVD to topple VHS. By 2001, DVD was outnumbering VHS easy.

 

[BillJ]

I remember it took a lot longer for DVD to become established. I was collecting VHS up to 2000, and five years before that there was a small DVD shelf in HMV Central London which had about 30 or so titles. For those first five years, the shelf space only doubled year on year, while the majority of the shop floor remained devoted to VHS.

Don't mean to doubt you, but you may want to double-check your dates.

DVD was NOT around in 1995!!

The first DVD discs were released, here in the UK, in 1998 (like you say, with only minimal shelf space). It only took 2 or 3 years for DVD to topple VHS. By 2001, DVD was outnumbering VHS easy.

Premiered here in the States in 1997 but was in Japan in 1996.

 

[LOKAI of CHERON]

I remember picking up my first (imported and modified) player from a specialist electronics store in London's Chinatown in the Spring of 1997. If I remember correctly, it set me back £500 ($812.00), for what an essentially technologically equivalent machine would be available years later from a supermarket shelf for £25.00! The price of early adoption I guess.

 

[BillJ]

I remember picking up my first (imported and modified) player from a specialist electronics store in London's Chinatown in the Spring of 1997. If I remember correctly, it set me back £500 ($812.00), for what an essentially technologically equivalent machine would be available years later from a supermarket shelf for £25.00! The price of early adoption I guess.

Yep. I remember paying well over a grand for my first HDTV back in 2007. A 32", 720p set.

 

[Dream]

I remember the first time Paramount released all the Trek shows on dvd. Each season on DVD cost $100!

While they are still quite expensive right now at $50, they no longer cost an arm and a leg!

 

[Trekker4747]

I remember it took a lot longer for DVD to become established. I was collecting VHS up to 2000, and five years before that there was a small DVD shelf in HMV Central London which had about 30 or so titles. For those first five years, the shelf space only doubled year on year, while the majority of the shop floor remained devoted to VHS.

Don't mean to doubt you, but you may want to double-check your dates.

DVD was NOT around in 1995!!

The first DVD discs were released, here in the UK, in 1998 (like you say, with only minimal shelf space). It only took 2 or 3 years for DVD to topple VHS. By 2001, DVD was outnumbering VHS easy.

I can't speak for Europe but DVD was certainly beginning here in 1995/1996. They were rare and the discs and players were expensive but they were certainly around.

 

[The Laughing Vulcan]

I remember it took a lot longer for DVD to become established. I was collecting VHS up to 2000, and five years before that there was a small DVD shelf in HMV Central London which had about 30 or so titles. For those first five years, the shelf space only doubled year on year, while the majority of the shop floor remained devoted to VHS.

Don't mean to doubt you, but you may want to double-check your dates.

DVD was NOT around in 1995!!

The first DVD discs were released, here in the UK, in 1998 (like you say, with only minimal shelf space). It only took 2 or 3 years for DVD to topple VHS. By 2001, DVD was outnumbering VHS easy.

I can't speak for Europe but DVD was certainly beginning here in 1995/1996. They were rare and the discs and players were expensive but they were certainly around.

I must be getting Home Video and PCs mixed up then. I bought a PC with a DVD-ROM in 1996, and I remember there were a few movies on disc floating around then demoing the technology in PC shops on Tottenham Court Road. I didn't actually watch a DVD on it for about 4 years though.

I guess DVD-ROMs predate DVD Players.

 

[tomswift2002]

Well prior to DVD there was the VideoCD which was nowhere near even VHS levels, but you still had the odd music video released on it here in North America. Not too mention the defunct-CDi discs.

But in 1995 DVD's were still in the labs at places like Sony and Panasonic.

 

[BillJ]

Well prior to DVD there was the VideoCD which was nowhere near even VHS levels, but you still had the odd music video released on it here in North America. Not too mention the defunct-CDi discs.

But in 1995 DVD's were still in the labs at places like Sony and Panasonic.

But VCD was big in Asia for a long time even after DVD started gaining market share. Back in the day, you could buy major movies for fairly cheap.