- LOCK - Format War - HD DVD vs. Blu-Ray - LOCK -
- Thread starter GizmoGC
- Start date
- Status
rodeojones903
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 81 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']POTC is sammiching HD DVD Transformers on the Amazon sales rankings:
POTC2: #5
Transformers: #6
POTC: #7
ZOMG! Amazon sales rankings matter SO MUCH that HD DVD is finished! :lol:
[/QUOTE]
Both POTCs have passed Transformers now.
POTC2: #5
Transformers: #6
POTC: #7
ZOMG! Amazon sales rankings matter SO MUCH that HD DVD is finished! :lol:
[/QUOTE]Both POTCs have passed Transformers now.
[quote name='KingBroly']I noticed at Best Buy today that Blu-Ray has 3 times the retail space as HD-DVD.
Oh yeah...Spider-Man 3 is coming soon. What then?[/QUOTE]
Great. 3 of mine have equal space, the other had 4 HD DVD to 3 for Blu-ray.
Its different at all stores you go to. No store in uniform with space for these formats.
Oh yeah...Spider-Man 3 is coming soon. What then?[/QUOTE]
Great. 3 of mine have equal space, the other had 4 HD DVD to 3 for Blu-ray.
Its different at all stores you go to. No store in uniform with space for these formats.
[quote name='rodeojones903']Both POTCs have passed Transformers now. [/QUOTE]
Yes, as I said before, the movies are $10-$12, its kinda obvious why these would be ranked so high. Will they last? Of course not. Once the sale is over they will drop and Transformers will still hold its spot. :lol:
Edit: Its actually kinda funny. These movies are only selling to the current install base. Stand Alone player sales are not increasing (except for a few weeks, right myke?). So there is no real growth. Just a way for Blu-ray to get more discs sold to brag about their YTD numbers. If it wasn't for the dozen or so BOGO's, would Blu-ray still be on top? What will happen to these catalog titles after the sales end? Any reason to buy POTC? What about POTC3? Why not just wait 2 weeks for the price to drop to $10? I learned my lesson buying Sony and Disney movies on release date. I wait until Fry's has them half off. I think others are starting to get the same idea. Its funny how Warner titles are always absent from these sales. Maybe they are the only ones that get selling a $25 MSRP title for $10 will just hurt potential sales.
[/QUOTE]Yes, as I said before, the movies are $10-$12, its kinda obvious why these would be ranked so high. Will they last? Of course not. Once the sale is over they will drop and Transformers will still hold its spot. :lol:
Edit: Its actually kinda funny. These movies are only selling to the current install base. Stand Alone player sales are not increasing (except for a few weeks, right myke?). So there is no real growth. Just a way for Blu-ray to get more discs sold to brag about their YTD numbers. If it wasn't for the dozen or so BOGO's, would Blu-ray still be on top? What will happen to these catalog titles after the sales end? Any reason to buy POTC? What about POTC3? Why not just wait 2 weeks for the price to drop to $10? I learned my lesson buying Sony and Disney movies on release date. I wait until Fry's has them half off. I think others are starting to get the same idea. Its funny how Warner titles are always absent from these sales. Maybe they are the only ones that get selling a $25 MSRP title for $10 will just hurt potential sales.
[quote name='GizmoGC']Edit: Its actually kinda funny. These movies are only selling to the current install base. Stand Alone player sales are not increasing (except for a few weeks, right myke?). So there is no real growth.[/QUOTE]
Thus, increasing the attach rate, which would still be a good thing, right? Or, is that not the case any more?
[quote name='GizmoGC']Just a way for Blu-ray to get more discs sold to brag about their YTD numbers.[/QUOTE]
How dare they try and push their own format and brag about the profits made and marketshare gained in the process. Jeez, talk about priorities
[quote name='GizmoGC']If it wasn't for the dozen or so BOGO's, would Blu-ray still be on top?[/QUOTE]
Hard to say really. Although, it really doesn't matter as I could come hundreds of 'what if' scenarios for both formats to try and reason why they are ahead or behind.
Thus, increasing the attach rate, which would still be a good thing, right? Or, is that not the case any more?
[quote name='GizmoGC']Just a way for Blu-ray to get more discs sold to brag about their YTD numbers.[/QUOTE]
How dare they try and push their own format and brag about the profits made and marketshare gained in the process. Jeez, talk about priorities
[quote name='GizmoGC']If it wasn't for the dozen or so BOGO's, would Blu-ray still be on top?[/QUOTE]
Hard to say really. Although, it really doesn't matter as I could come hundreds of 'what if' scenarios for both formats to try and reason why they are ahead or behind.
H.Cornerstone
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='geko29']It can't be compressed as much because the codec isn't as efficient. A VC-1 or AVC encode at, say 16Mbps, could look the same as an MPEG-2 encode at 28Mbps (numbers pulled out of my ass, but they're in the right ballpark). A VC-1 or AVC encode at the same bitrate as an MPEG-2 encode will blow it away every time.
Depends on your frame of reference, I guess. Older films will tend not to have the 3D-type effects of newer films because they don't have CGI. But they can look just as good from the standpoint that they perfectly recreate the experience you would have had if you went to the very first showing at the finest theater in the country, using the very first print made from the camera negative. High-Def isn't only about whiz-bang action and effects (though that is certainly a part), it's also about transparency to the master. Or more simply, "does this look exactly the same as it would in a perfect cinema environment?" In that respect, age is not a factor.
My experience with HDM has been that a well-done disc, regardless of the age of the source, gives me a better movie experience (both video and audio) at home than I could get at any theater. In that respect, yes older films CAN look just as good as new ones. It's just easier to do with newer films because they're often already available in D5 or DI format, and they don't have film elements that need to be cleaned up before being scanned.[/quote]
So what your saying is Crank would have looked better on AVC? I agree, it all depends on the movie and what the studio does with it, but I still think newer movies will still look better. But that's the problem, some studio's are lazy and don't clean up movies, with digital we don't have to worry about it. Either way, this argument is kind of pointless, I will always think Digital > film so I will end it.
And Spider-man 3 and Transformers pretty much got the same critical reception, so that's all I am going to say.
Depends on your frame of reference, I guess. Older films will tend not to have the 3D-type effects of newer films because they don't have CGI. But they can look just as good from the standpoint that they perfectly recreate the experience you would have had if you went to the very first showing at the finest theater in the country, using the very first print made from the camera negative. High-Def isn't only about whiz-bang action and effects (though that is certainly a part), it's also about transparency to the master. Or more simply, "does this look exactly the same as it would in a perfect cinema environment?" In that respect, age is not a factor.
My experience with HDM has been that a well-done disc, regardless of the age of the source, gives me a better movie experience (both video and audio) at home than I could get at any theater. In that respect, yes older films CAN look just as good as new ones. It's just easier to do with newer films because they're often already available in D5 or DI format, and they don't have film elements that need to be cleaned up before being scanned.[/quote]
So what your saying is Crank would have looked better on AVC? I agree, it all depends on the movie and what the studio does with it, but I still think newer movies will still look better. But that's the problem, some studio's are lazy and don't clean up movies, with digital we don't have to worry about it. Either way, this argument is kind of pointless, I will always think Digital > film so I will end it.
And Spider-man 3 and Transformers pretty much got the same critical reception, so that's all I am going to say.
[quote name='H.Cornerstone']And Spider-man 3 and Transformers pretty much got the same critical reception, so that's all I am going to say.[/QUOTE]
Spiderman 3 = same old shit
Transformers = something new
Has anyone seen a UMD played on a TV yet ?
How's it look , DVD quality ?
Spiderman 3 = same old shit
Transformers = something new
Has anyone seen a UMD played on a TV yet ?
How's it look , DVD quality ?
[quote name='Richlough']Spiderman 3 = same old shit
Transformers = something new[/quote]
To be fair though, Spiderman 2 was the same old shit, and was still an amazing movie. Better than the first, IMO, which is no small feat. 3 stumbled because they tried to cram too many plot devices into the story without caring how they fit, had one-dimensional villians (which they tried to compensate for by having two), and turned Peter Parker into a complete emo douche. The first and second films had a cohesive theme and a relatively logical plot progression, as far as summer popcorn flicks go. If the third had followed that formula instead of trying to reinvent itself, it probably would have been a much better movie. Again, IMO.
If I were a Blu-Ray owner, I'd still buy the trilogy. But it'd be to get the first two (far superior) films. I could care less about the third. Seeing it once in the theater is enough.
Transformers = something new[/quote]
To be fair though, Spiderman 2 was the same old shit, and was still an amazing movie. Better than the first, IMO, which is no small feat. 3 stumbled because they tried to cram too many plot devices into the story without caring how they fit, had one-dimensional villians (which they tried to compensate for by having two), and turned Peter Parker into a complete emo douche. The first and second films had a cohesive theme and a relatively logical plot progression, as far as summer popcorn flicks go. If the third had followed that formula instead of trying to reinvent itself, it probably would have been a much better movie. Again, IMO.
If I were a Blu-Ray owner, I'd still buy the trilogy. But it'd be to get the first two (far superior) films. I could care less about the third. Seeing it once in the theater is enough.
H.Cornerstone
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='geko29']To be fair though, Spiderman 2 was the same old shit, and was still an amazing movie. Better than the first, IMO, which is no small feat. 3 stumbled because they tried to cram too many plot devices into the story without caring how they fit, had one-dimensional villians (which they tried to compensate for by having two), and turned Peter Parker into a complete emo douche. The first and second films had a cohesive theme and a relatively logical plot progression, as far as summer popcorn flicks go. If the third had followed that formula instead of trying to reinvent itself, it probably would have been a much better movie. Again, IMO.
If I were a Blu-Ray owner, I'd still buy the trilogy. But it'd be to get the first two (far superior) films. I could care less about the third. Seeing it once in the theater is enough.[/quote]
Yeah, I would be the Trilogy off of Amazon. 64$ I get all three movies, three Blu-ray movies for 20$ is a good deal. Or I could look at I get Spider-man 1 and 2 which are awesome, and Spider-man 3 for FREE! Either way, I didn't HATE the 3rd one, I agree with everything you said, but still enjoyed it. I guess hte problem is that Spider-Man 1 and 2 are considered to be two of the best Comic-book movies of all time and the 3rd didn't come close to them. whoever did the review at Highdefdigest pretty much broke down the movie perfectly. Basically, Sam Riami has a soft spot for Sandman, but all the fans wanted Venom so they put him in just for that reason even though the director wanted Sandman, so there became some conflict. And if you say Transformers is new as in it's a new series, I Agree. Big robots blowing up stuff isn't that new of idea though. And I was a huge fan of the movie, and still pissed off at Paramount for going over that everytime I see their commercial for Transformers I yell at the TV in protest.
If I were a Blu-Ray owner, I'd still buy the trilogy. But it'd be to get the first two (far superior) films. I could care less about the third. Seeing it once in the theater is enough.[/quote]
Yeah, I would be the Trilogy off of Amazon. 64$ I get all three movies, three Blu-ray movies for 20$ is a good deal. Or I could look at I get Spider-man 1 and 2 which are awesome, and Spider-man 3 for FREE! Either way, I didn't HATE the 3rd one, I agree with everything you said, but still enjoyed it. I guess hte problem is that Spider-Man 1 and 2 are considered to be two of the best Comic-book movies of all time and the 3rd didn't come close to them. whoever did the review at Highdefdigest pretty much broke down the movie perfectly. Basically, Sam Riami has a soft spot for Sandman, but all the fans wanted Venom so they put him in just for that reason even though the director wanted Sandman, so there became some conflict. And if you say Transformers is new as in it's a new series, I Agree. Big robots blowing up stuff isn't that new of idea though. And I was a huge fan of the movie, and still pissed off at Paramount for going over that everytime I see their commercial for Transformers I yell at the TV in protest.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='GizmoGC']Yes, as I said before, the movies are $10-$12, its kinda obvious why these would be ranked so high. Will they last? Of course not. Once the sale is over they will drop and Transformers will still hold its spot. :lol:
Edit: Its actually kinda funny. These movies are only selling to the current install base. Stand Alone player sales are not increasing (except for a few weeks, right myke?). So there is no real growth. Just a way for Blu-ray to get more discs sold to brag about their YTD numbers. If it wasn't for the dozen or so BOGO's, would Blu-ray still be on top? What will happen to these catalog titles after the sales end? Any reason to buy POTC? What about POTC3? Why not just wait 2 weeks for the price to drop to $10? I learned my lesson buying Sony and Disney movies on release date. I wait until Fry's has them half off. I think others are starting to get the same idea. Its funny how Warner titles are always absent from these sales. Maybe they are the only ones that get selling a $25 MSRP title for $10 will just hurt potential sales.[/QUOTE]
I have to say, after reading such rambling sycophantic drivel, your overreacting a bit here; reacting overdefensively as if, say, an HD DVD exclusive studio took a $150 million buyout to go Blu-Ray exclusive.
EDIT: And I don't know anything about Hostel, other than being told it's more "gore porn" than "horror."
Edit: Its actually kinda funny. These movies are only selling to the current install base. Stand Alone player sales are not increasing (except for a few weeks, right myke?). So there is no real growth. Just a way for Blu-ray to get more discs sold to brag about their YTD numbers. If it wasn't for the dozen or so BOGO's, would Blu-ray still be on top? What will happen to these catalog titles after the sales end? Any reason to buy POTC? What about POTC3? Why not just wait 2 weeks for the price to drop to $10? I learned my lesson buying Sony and Disney movies on release date. I wait until Fry's has them half off. I think others are starting to get the same idea. Its funny how Warner titles are always absent from these sales. Maybe they are the only ones that get selling a $25 MSRP title for $10 will just hurt potential sales.[/QUOTE]
I have to say, after reading such rambling sycophantic drivel, your overreacting a bit here; reacting overdefensively as if, say, an HD DVD exclusive studio took a $150 million buyout to go Blu-Ray exclusive.
EDIT: And I don't know anything about Hostel, other than being told it's more "gore porn" than "horror."
[quote name='mykevermin']I have to say, after reading such rambling sycophantic drivel, your overreacting a bit here; reacting overdefensively as if, say, an HD DVD exclusive studio took a $150 million buyout to go Blu-Ray exclusive.
EDIT: And I don't know anything about Hostel, other than being told it's more "gore porn" than "horror."[/QUOTE]
Its fine. I usually can only skim through your rambling posts as you tend to use words that no one else on a message board would use. I tend to leave the thesaurus on the shelf....covered in an inch worth of dust.
"Gore Porn". Sweet.
EDIT: And I don't know anything about Hostel, other than being told it's more "gore porn" than "horror."[/QUOTE]
Its fine. I usually can only skim through your rambling posts as you tend to use words that no one else on a message board would use. I tend to leave the thesaurus on the shelf....covered in an inch worth of dust.
"Gore Porn". Sweet.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
"Porn" in the sense of over the top gore, not...the other meaning.
[quote name='GizmoGC']How are the Hostel movies? Ive never seen them before but both come out next week on Blu-ray(I'll wait, of course, until they are Buy 1 Get 1 Free or $10 like usual) but as MOVIES, are they any good? Comparable to SAW?[/quote]
A lot of people like them, but I DESPISED Hostel. It had no
ing clue what it wanted to be. The first half of the movie was a road-tripping softcore porno (not that that's necessarily a bad thing), and then transitioned into a very sadistic shock film (I wouldn't even really call it horror) in the second half. Lots of greusome and excessive violence with no real purpose.
Of course the saw movies have their share of sadism and over-the-top grisly violence too. But it's set in the framework of a story and has fleshed-out characters that add to the suspense and make them worth watching. And for that, they're far superior. Saw 1-3 make no bones about what they are, but at least they have purpose and meaning. Hostel to me, was just a hoplessly lost, meandering, meaningless excercise in nudity and dismemberment. Watching a porno followed an Al Zarqawi beheading gives pretty much the same effect.
It's worth mentioning that I almost turned Saw 3 off about 25-30 minutes in because I saw it heading in the same direction of pointlessness that Hostel put me through. More of an exercise in "ok, what poor sap are they going to kill now?" with no suspense and no purpose. But I'm glad I stuck it out, because the sheer empty nature of the killings at the beginning of the film was in fact the point the writer was trying to make, and is in the end what made the story worth telling, IMO.
A lot of people like them, but I DESPISED Hostel. It had no
ing clue what it wanted to be. The first half of the movie was a road-tripping softcore porno (not that that's necessarily a bad thing), and then transitioned into a very sadistic shock film (I wouldn't even really call it horror) in the second half. Lots of greusome and excessive violence with no real purpose.Of course the saw movies have their share of sadism and over-the-top grisly violence too. But it's set in the framework of a story and has fleshed-out characters that add to the suspense and make them worth watching. And for that, they're far superior. Saw 1-3 make no bones about what they are, but at least they have purpose and meaning. Hostel to me, was just a hoplessly lost, meandering, meaningless excercise in nudity and dismemberment. Watching a porno followed an Al Zarqawi beheading gives pretty much the same effect.
It's worth mentioning that I almost turned Saw 3 off about 25-30 minutes in because I saw it heading in the same direction of pointlessness that Hostel put me through. More of an exercise in "ok, what poor sap are they going to kill now?" with no suspense and no purpose. But I'm glad I stuck it out, because the sheer empty nature of the killings at the beginning of the film was in fact the point the writer was trying to make, and is in the end what made the story worth telling, IMO.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Debbie Does Dallas is on BR/HD? For $50 retail?
No, and no.
[quote name='geko29']Lots of greusome and excessive violence with no real purpose.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much what I meant by "gore porn."
No, and no.
[quote name='geko29']Lots of greusome and excessive violence with no real purpose.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much what I meant by "gore porn."
[quote name='geko29']A lot of people like them, but I DESPISED Hostel. It had no ing clue what it wanted to be. The first half of the movie was a road-tripping softcore porno (not that that's necessarily a bad thing), and then transitioned into a very sadistic shock film (I wouldn't even really call it horror) in the second half. Lots of greusome and excessive violence with no real purpose.
Of course the saw movies have their share of sadism and over-the-top grisly violence too. But it's set in the framework of a story and has fleshed-out characters that add to the suspense and make them worth watching. And for that, they're far superior. Saw 1-3 make no bones about what they are, but at least they have purpose and meaning. Hostel to me, was just a hoplessly lost, meandering, meaningless excercise in nudity and dismemberment. Watching a porno followed an Al Zarqawi beheading gives pretty much the same effect.
It's worth mentioning that I almost turned Saw 3 off about 25-30 minutes in because I saw it heading in the same direction of pointlessness that Hostel put me through. More of an exercise in "ok, what poor sap are they going to kill now?" with no suspense and no purpose. But I'm glad I stuck it out, because the sheer empty nature of the killings at the beginning of the film was in fact the point the writer was trying to make, and is in the end what made the story worth telling, IMO.[/QUOTE]
Is it anything like "Wold Creek". I actually enjoyed that film and the first 30 minutes seems to follow you're outline for "Hostel".
ing clue what it wanted to be. The first half of the movie was a road-tripping softcore porno (not that that's necessarily a bad thing), and then transitioned into a very sadistic shock film (I wouldn't even really call it horror) in the second half. Lots of greusome and excessive violence with no real purpose.Of course the saw movies have their share of sadism and over-the-top grisly violence too. But it's set in the framework of a story and has fleshed-out characters that add to the suspense and make them worth watching. And for that, they're far superior. Saw 1-3 make no bones about what they are, but at least they have purpose and meaning. Hostel to me, was just a hoplessly lost, meandering, meaningless excercise in nudity and dismemberment. Watching a porno followed an Al Zarqawi beheading gives pretty much the same effect.
It's worth mentioning that I almost turned Saw 3 off about 25-30 minutes in because I saw it heading in the same direction of pointlessness that Hostel put me through. More of an exercise in "ok, what poor sap are they going to kill now?" with no suspense and no purpose. But I'm glad I stuck it out, because the sheer empty nature of the killings at the beginning of the film was in fact the point the writer was trying to make, and is in the end what made the story worth telling, IMO.[/QUOTE]
Is it anything like "Wold Creek". I actually enjoyed that film and the first 30 minutes seems to follow you're outline for "Hostel".
[quote name='mykevermin']Debbie Does Dallas is on BR/HD? For $50 retail?
No, and no.[/QUOTE]
Yep. $50 at Fry's on HD DVD (they don't carry it on Blu-ray?)...right next to all the other movies. Never seen it but the misses keeps wanting to watch it to see porn in 'HD'. She's an interesting one.
No, and no.[/QUOTE]
Yep. $50 at Fry's on HD DVD (they don't carry it on Blu-ray?)...right next to all the other movies. Never seen it but the misses keeps wanting to watch it to see porn in 'HD'. She's an interesting one.
I haven't seen Wolf Creek yet (it's on my Amazon wish list). But from the reviews I've read, the slowness in the beginning is to A: introduce the characters and B: build tension. I guess Hostel introduces the characters in the first hour, except I personally don't think they're worth introducing. But except for a few short sequences, there's no tension whatsoever until it makes a complete 180 into sadism with no transition of any kind.
H.Cornerstone
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='dpatel']I didn't know you could buy porn at Fry's. $50 though? that. I don't think I would even want to see some pornstars in that much detail.[/quote]
Yeah... Thats pretty much what me and my friend's said when we saw it.. I wonder why it's so expensive?......
that. I don't think I would even want to see some pornstars in that much detail.[/quote]Yeah... Thats pretty much what me and my friend's said when we saw it.. I wonder why it's so expensive?......
[quote name='dpatel']I didn't know you could buy porn at Fry's. $50 though? that. I don't think I would even want to see some pornstars in that much detail.[/QUOTE]
It's the same reason why porn stars are so hesitant about adopting HD themselves. I guess they're just going to have to spend more money on soft filters.
The porn section at my Fry's is located where? Where else? In between the computer programming manuals and anime DVD's.
that. I don't think I would even want to see some pornstars in that much detail.[/QUOTE]It's the same reason why porn stars are so hesitant about adopting HD themselves. I guess they're just going to have to spend more money on soft filters.
The porn section at my Fry's is located where? Where else? In between the computer programming manuals and anime DVD's.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/s...n_Special_Edition_HD_DVD_Not_So_Special_/1070
$150 million well spent. :lol:
$150 million well spent. :lol:
T3 is coming to BD finally and boasts exclusives extras.
Of course the only one I care about is the addition lossless DolbyHD track
http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Exclusive_HD_Content/Disc_Announcements/Terminator_3_Bound_For_Blu-ray_This_December/1069
Of course the only one I care about is the addition lossless DolbyHD track
http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Exclusive_HD_Content/Disc_Announcements/Terminator_3_Bound_For_Blu-ray_This_December/1069
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Good news, I suppose. Thankless myke says "kthxbai, where's Batman Begins now?"
[quote name='mykevermin']http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/s...n_Special_Edition_HD_DVD_Not_So_Special_/1070
$150 million well spent. :lol:[/QUOTE]
That is pretty bad. That's just as bad as Disney forgetting to include the rest of Orlando Bloom's head in Dead Man's Chest.
$150 million well spent. :lol:[/QUOTE]
That is pretty bad. That's just as bad as Disney forgetting to include the rest of Orlando Bloom's head in Dead Man's Chest.
benjamouth
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='GizmoGC']Is it anything like "Wold Creek". I actually enjoyed that film and the first 30 minutes seems to follow you're outline for "Hostel".[/quote]
Did you mean "Wolf Creek" if you did then Hostel was much better IMO, but then I thought Wolf Creek was a terrible, terrible movie.
They do run along the same lines but Hostel was superior in many ways.
Oh boy, am I ever looking forward to watching Transformers in HD.
Did you mean "Wolf Creek" if you did then Hostel was much better IMO, but then I thought Wolf Creek was a terrible, terrible movie.
They do run along the same lines but Hostel was superior in many ways.
Oh boy, am I ever looking forward to watching Transformers in HD.
H.Cornerstone
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Paramount/Technical_Glitches/Jack_Ryan_Special_Edition_HD_DVD_Not_So_Special_/1070
$150 million well spent. :lol:[/quote]
But but but... you have no proof they received 150 million dollars!
Either way, that's awesome, rofl.
$150 million well spent. :lol:[/quote]
But but but... you have no proof they received 150 million dollars!
Either way, that's awesome, rofl.
guyver2077
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 6 (100%)
what a stupid post..
http://blogs.ign.com/jigglysquishy/2006/09/16/31110/
http://blogs.ign.com/jigglysquishy/2006/09/16/31110/
H.Cornerstone
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='guyver2077']what a stupid post..
http://blogs.ign.com/jigglysquishy/2006/09/16/31110/[/quote]
Pretty much, he's a nobody. First off, how did his "friend" with a 2 grand camera have SPider-man 3 already? 2nd off, How do we know he has the blu-ray/hd-dvd drives hooked up with component cables? 3rd off, how do we know his TV doesn't suck? All I am going to say is, even MY MOM can tell the difference between dvd and blu-ray. In fact, I think that should be BLu-ray's new slogan.
"Blu-ray, a picture so clear even your mother can tell the difference"
http://blogs.ign.com/jigglysquishy/2006/09/16/31110/[/quote]
Pretty much, he's a nobody. First off, how did his "friend" with a 2 grand camera have SPider-man 3 already? 2nd off, How do we know he has the blu-ray/hd-dvd drives hooked up with component cables? 3rd off, how do we know his TV doesn't suck? All I am going to say is, even MY MOM can tell the difference between dvd and blu-ray. In fact, I think that should be BLu-ray's new slogan.
"Blu-ray, a picture so clear even your mother can tell the difference"
[quote name='guyver2077']what a stupid post..
http://blogs.ign.com/jigglysquishy/2006/09/16/31110/[/quote]
I want to know what a "substation increase" is. Is he referring to the release of Transformers? :lol:
http://blogs.ign.com/jigglysquishy/2006/09/16/31110/[/quote]
I want to know what a "substation increase" is. Is he referring to the release of Transformers? :lol:
Yes, you can go ahead and groan now.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Anyone see the sales comparison for last week? 68% to 32%?
tee-hee.
tee-hee.
[quote name='mykevermin']Anyone see the sales comparison for last week? 68% to 32%?
tee-hee.[/quote]
Indeed. Reinforces the notion that big Day and Date releases are the only thing that matter.
Also, however, reinforces my theory that 66/34 is no longer the mean. FF4:ROTSS sold fairly well (Based on the ratio to Batman Begins/Casino Royale, I estimate about 25k, or about half of all discs sold on a typical week) and obviously tilted things towards Blu-Ray. But it was definitely by more than 2%. I'm still guessing 60:40-ish is the new "normal", but we need some more non-blockbuster weeks to know for sure. Of course, there aren't many of those in the near future...
tee-hee.[/quote]
Indeed. Reinforces the notion that big Day and Date releases are the only thing that matter.
Also, however, reinforces my theory that 66/34 is no longer the mean. FF4:ROTSS sold fairly well (Based on the ratio to Batman Begins/Casino Royale, I estimate about 25k, or about half of all discs sold on a typical week) and obviously tilted things towards Blu-Ray. But it was definitely by more than 2%. I'm still guessing 60:40-ish is the new "normal", but we need some more non-blockbuster weeks to know for sure. Of course, there aren't many of those in the near future...
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
The YTD mean is 66/34. What trends make you think that it's moving in HD DVD's favor?
January is probably the first chance for any non-blockbuster weeks.
January is probably the first chance for any non-blockbuster weeks.
[quote name='mykevermin']The YTD mean is 66/34. What trends make you think that it's moving in HD DVD's favor?[/quote] I'm speaking of the mean in weekly sales. YTD is the average of total volume for the year. The only occasion where it'd be useful when considering weekly sales ratio is if it moves two points (because one could be a very small move + rounding). Then it tells us that a week had significant volume. At the beginning of the year, YTD is a worthwile comparison to the weekly sales ratios because so little total volume is included. Toward the end of the year, it's basically useless for that purpose. This is ESPECIALLY true because of the volume that 300 has moved (1 in 11 discs since inception, remember, 1 in 9 discs sold this year). In order for YTD to move, the ratio for a particular week would have to be VASTLY different than 66:34 (like on the order of 30:70) AND have a VERY high volume.
But if a week with no blockbuster releases still meant a 66:34 ratio and a D&D blockbuster (that sold 5x as many copies as the #2 movie, and 8x as many as #3) only changed that to 68:32? The ONLY way that's possible is if 1.25 MILLION discs are sold every week. And since we just hit 4.5 million since inception for both formats combined.....
The current weekly norm (meaning absent a new blockbuster) simply cannot be 66:34 at the volumes we have, nor can it be the 56:44 it was last week. It HAS to be somewhere in the middle. My guess is 60:40, but I'm not afraid to admit it if that turns out to be wrong.
But if a week with no blockbuster releases still meant a 66:34 ratio and a D&D blockbuster (that sold 5x as many copies as the #2 movie, and 8x as many as #3) only changed that to 68:32? The ONLY way that's possible is if 1.25 MILLION discs are sold every week. And since we just hit 4.5 million since inception for both formats combined.....
The current weekly norm (meaning absent a new blockbuster) simply cannot be 66:34 at the volumes we have, nor can it be the 56:44 it was last week. It HAS to be somewhere in the middle. My guess is 60:40, but I'm not afraid to admit it if that turns out to be wrong.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
I understand how the law of central tendencies works.
I'm just not buying your idea because the YTD mean, which reflects the week-to-week sales, is 66 to 34. Irrespective of any changes. This includes weeks of D&D blockbusters, D&D non-blockbusters (Stranger Than Fiction and the like), and catalog releases. Those are the movies that are coming out. The YTD ratio has been 66 to 34 for many months now. While it's down from early in the year (69/31), as you point out, there are fewer datapoints early in the year, so at that point, one week's sales have greater influence (competing with fewer weeks then).
The SI share has moved from 56/44 in April to 61/39 as of 10/7/07. That reflects all sales, as you know. Trends moving favorably in the direction of BR can not, out of necessity, be the result of sales trends per week moving in the direction of HD DVD.
Additionally, it's incorrect to try to calculate the norm without considering blockbusters, D&D, or any other kind of release. They all matter, and none of each type will disappear, barring the discontinuation of both video formats. Leaving out any kind provides an incorrect estimate of the sales ratio. Knowing that all video types should be considered, the YTD and SI ratios are still more valid and reliable estimates of what sales are like.
I'm just not buying your idea because the YTD mean, which reflects the week-to-week sales, is 66 to 34. Irrespective of any changes. This includes weeks of D&D blockbusters, D&D non-blockbusters (Stranger Than Fiction and the like), and catalog releases. Those are the movies that are coming out. The YTD ratio has been 66 to 34 for many months now. While it's down from early in the year (69/31), as you point out, there are fewer datapoints early in the year, so at that point, one week's sales have greater influence (competing with fewer weeks then).
The SI share has moved from 56/44 in April to 61/39 as of 10/7/07. That reflects all sales, as you know. Trends moving favorably in the direction of BR can not, out of necessity, be the result of sales trends per week moving in the direction of HD DVD.
Additionally, it's incorrect to try to calculate the norm without considering blockbusters, D&D, or any other kind of release. They all matter, and none of each type will disappear, barring the discontinuation of both video formats. Leaving out any kind provides an incorrect estimate of the sales ratio. Knowing that all video types should be considered, the YTD and SI ratios are still more valid and reliable estimates of what sales are like.
[quote name='mykevermin']http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/s...n_Special_Edition_HD_DVD_Not_So_Special_/1070
$150 million well spent. :lol:[/QUOTE]
Yeah, thating SUCKS! Hopefully this was just an error and Paramount will fix these discs or offer refunds. If not, I'll be passing on all of their future catalog titles (which I have. I only own 2 or 3 Paramount titles as is)
$150 million well spent. :lol:[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that
ing SUCKS! Hopefully this was just an error and Paramount will fix these discs or offer refunds. If not, I'll be passing on all of their future catalog titles (which I have. I only own 2 or 3 Paramount titles as is)YTD and SI are more valid estimates of what sales HAVE BEEN like. But they have almost nothing to do with what sales ARE like. That's the point. We got to the 66:34 YTD because for the majority of the year, the weekly mean was 66:34. If Blu-Ray had a big release, it moved that way for a bit. If HD DVD had one, it moved the other way for a bit. But it settled at 66:34.
The effect of blockbusters moving away from the weekly mean (what I called the "setpoint" earlier) has not changed. But based on the information we have, 66:34 simply cannot be that weekly mean or setpoint anymore. It's not mathematically possible. I'm not trying to discount the overall effect of blockbusters at all. They are important, of course, and they contribute to the weekly mean.
And to nitpick, SI did not hit 61:39 on 10/7. It did it back on 8/12, and has not moved since. If the weekly mean was still 66:34, SI should have hit 62:38 by this week. It was 59:41 for four weeks, 60:40 for six weeks, and has been 61:39 for ten weeks. If the new mean is ~60:40, it probably won't move ever again.
Furthermore, the only two blockbusters the past two weeks have been Knocked Up, which sold roughly 15k copies, and FF4, which sold in the neighborhood of 25k. For SEVERAL weeks before that, there were no major releases, so things were relatively settled. If the weekly mean was still 66:34, that means Knocked Up selling 15k copies moved the weekly ratio by TWELVE points, while FF4s 25k copies only moved TWO. Again, mathematically impossible.
The effect of blockbusters moving away from the weekly mean (what I called the "setpoint" earlier) has not changed. But based on the information we have, 66:34 simply cannot be that weekly mean or setpoint anymore. It's not mathematically possible. I'm not trying to discount the overall effect of blockbusters at all. They are important, of course, and they contribute to the weekly mean.
And to nitpick, SI did not hit 61:39 on 10/7. It did it back on 8/12, and has not moved since. If the weekly mean was still 66:34, SI should have hit 62:38 by this week. It was 59:41 for four weeks, 60:40 for six weeks, and has been 61:39 for ten weeks. If the new mean is ~60:40, it probably won't move ever again.
Furthermore, the only two blockbusters the past two weeks have been Knocked Up, which sold roughly 15k copies, and FF4, which sold in the neighborhood of 25k. For SEVERAL weeks before that, there were no major releases, so things were relatively settled. If the weekly mean was still 66:34, that means Knocked Up selling 15k copies moved the weekly ratio by TWELVE points, while FF4s 25k copies only moved TWO. Again, mathematically impossible.
[quote name='dpatel']I didn't know you could buy porn at Fry's. $50 though? that. I don't think I would even want to see some pornstars in that much detail.[/QUOTE]
My Fry's has a pretty big section of porn (about the size of the HD DVD section...3/4 rows). They only have Debbie Does Dallas in both formats...and mixed in the other HD/BR movies. Odd to have porn out in the open :lol:
that. I don't think I would even want to see some pornstars in that much detail.[/QUOTE]My Fry's has a pretty big section of porn (about the size of the HD DVD section...3/4 rows). They only have Debbie Does Dallas in both formats...and mixed in the other HD/BR movies. Odd to have porn out in the open :lol:
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='geko29']YTD and SI are more valid estimates of what sales HAVE BEEN like. But they have almost nothing to do with what sales ARE like. That's the point. We got to the 66:34 YTD because for the majority of the year, the weekly mean was 66:34. If Blu-Ray had a big release, it moved that way for a bit. If HD DVD had one, it moved the other way for a bit. But it settled at 66:34.
The effect of blockbusters moving away from the weekly mean (what I called the "setpoint" earlier) has not changed. But based on the information we have, 66:34 simply cannot be that weekly mean or setpoint anymore. It's not mathematically possible. I'm not trying to discount the overall effect of blockbusters at all. They are important, of course, and they contribute to the weekly mean.
And to nitpick, SI did not hit 61:39 on 10/7. It did it back on 8/12, and has not moved since. If the weekly mean was still 66:34, SI should have hit 62:38 this week. It was 59:41 for four weeks, 60:40 for six weeks, and has been 61:39 for eight weeks. If the new mean is ~60:40, it probably won't move ever again.[/quote]
The hangup I have is that (1) the 60/40 estimate is arbitrary on your part (as you pointed out earlier), but also (2) suggests a substantial shift in favor of HD DVD. Now, it is plausible to move in HD DVD's favor (though no data support that), but not the shift from 66/34 to 60/40. A substantial shift with no probable cause, for that matter.
As for the YTD/SI shifts, you do have a point in that regard, but the lack of the SI trend failing to move 1% more in BR's favor does not immediately lend itself to a spontaneous 10% change in hidef disc sales.
Not impossible at all, as the ratio is just that. If the sales numbers for all hidef disc sales for those weeks were identical (which seems mathematically impossible on the surface of 15K discs moving the ratio so substantially, while 25K did so marginally), you may be onto something. Do you have access to that kind of information?
The effect of blockbusters moving away from the weekly mean (what I called the "setpoint" earlier) has not changed. But based on the information we have, 66:34 simply cannot be that weekly mean or setpoint anymore. It's not mathematically possible. I'm not trying to discount the overall effect of blockbusters at all. They are important, of course, and they contribute to the weekly mean.
And to nitpick, SI did not hit 61:39 on 10/7. It did it back on 8/12, and has not moved since. If the weekly mean was still 66:34, SI should have hit 62:38 this week. It was 59:41 for four weeks, 60:40 for six weeks, and has been 61:39 for eight weeks. If the new mean is ~60:40, it probably won't move ever again.[/quote]
The hangup I have is that (1) the 60/40 estimate is arbitrary on your part (as you pointed out earlier), but also (2) suggests a substantial shift in favor of HD DVD. Now, it is plausible to move in HD DVD's favor (though no data support that), but not the shift from 66/34 to 60/40. A substantial shift with no probable cause, for that matter.
As for the YTD/SI shifts, you do have a point in that regard, but the lack of the SI trend failing to move 1% more in BR's favor does not immediately lend itself to a spontaneous 10% change in hidef disc sales.
Not impossible at all, as the ratio is just that. If the sales numbers for all hidef disc sales for those weeks were identical (which seems mathematically impossible on the surface of 15K discs moving the ratio so substantially, while 25K did so marginally), you may be onto something. Do you have access to that kind of information?
[quote name='mykevermin']The hangup I have is that (1) the 60/40 estimate is arbitrary on your part (as you pointed out earlier), but also (2) suggests a substantial shift in favor of HD DVD. Now, it is plausible to move in HD DVD's favor (though no data support that), but not the shift from 66/34 to 60/40. A substantial shift with no probable cause, for that matter.[/quote]
It's not ENTIRELY arbitrary. In the past 5 weeks, we have had no big titles for three weeks, followed by a large HD DVD and then a big Blu-Ray. The weekly ratios have been:
60:40
61:39
63:37
54:46
68:32
It's more of an educated guess based on the information at hand.
[quote name='mykevermin'] As for the YTD/SI shifts, you do have a point in that regard, but the lack of the SI trend failing to move 1% more in BR's favor does not immediately lend itself to a spontaneous 10% change in hidef disc sales.[/quote]
6% change. And no it's not proof, but every week that it continues to not change strengthens the supposition.
[quote name='mykevermin']Not impossible at all, as the ratio is just that. If the sales numbers for all hidef disc sales for those weeks were identical (which seems mathematically impossible on the surface of 15K discs moving the ratio so substantially, while 25K did so marginally), you may be onto something. Do you have access to that kind of information?[/quote]
We don't have access to those numbers. Someone on AVS makes rough guestimates of the total volume for the week based on the averages (believed to be 50-60k for a non-blockbuster week), but no hard facts. Just the same, absent the sort of trend I'm suggesting, we have no reason to believe that total sales of movies outside of the top 10 changes very much from week to week (except the actual current week--not this week's report--with the BOGO sale). I can run some rough calculations in the morning to figure out what that base point is, but I'm freaking tired right now.
It's not ENTIRELY arbitrary. In the past 5 weeks, we have had no big titles for three weeks, followed by a large HD DVD and then a big Blu-Ray. The weekly ratios have been:
60:40
61:39
63:37
54:46
68:32
It's more of an educated guess based on the information at hand.
[quote name='mykevermin'] As for the YTD/SI shifts, you do have a point in that regard, but the lack of the SI trend failing to move 1% more in BR's favor does not immediately lend itself to a spontaneous 10% change in hidef disc sales.[/quote]
6% change. And no it's not proof, but every week that it continues to not change strengthens the supposition.
[quote name='mykevermin']Not impossible at all, as the ratio is just that. If the sales numbers for all hidef disc sales for those weeks were identical (which seems mathematically impossible on the surface of 15K discs moving the ratio so substantially, while 25K did so marginally), you may be onto something. Do you have access to that kind of information?[/quote]
We don't have access to those numbers. Someone on AVS makes rough guestimates of the total volume for the week based on the averages (believed to be 50-60k for a non-blockbuster week), but no hard facts. Just the same, absent the sort of trend I'm suggesting, we have no reason to believe that total sales of movies outside of the top 10 changes very much from week to week (except the actual current week--not this week's report--with the BOGO sale). I can run some rough calculations in the morning to figure out what that base point is, but I'm freaking tired right now.
Couple more Denon BD players acomin'!
Watched Immortal Beloved last night.
Great audio!
http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/17/denon-intros-two-new-high-end-blu-ray-players/
Watched Immortal Beloved last night.
Great audio!
http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/17/denon-intros-two-new-high-end-blu-ray-players/
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='geko29']6% change.[/QUOTE]
I have to nitpick here, but the change is 10%, because one is losing 10%, while the other gains 4%. BR losing 6% of weekly sales changes the ratio, but not to 60/40. HD DVD has to increase sales as well.
66/34 - the gap is 32%
60/40 - the gap is 20%
Actually...hmm. That is a 12% shift, making it even more improbable. Just like I wouldn't expect to see the YTD or SI ratios jump 2 points in a week, I would never expect such a shift with no explainable cause.
I have to nitpick here, but the change is 10%, because one is losing 10%, while the other gains 4%. BR losing 6% of weekly sales changes the ratio, but not to 60/40. HD DVD has to increase sales as well.
66/34 - the gap is 32%
60/40 - the gap is 20%
Actually...hmm. That is a 12% shift, making it even more improbable. Just like I wouldn't expect to see the YTD or SI ratios jump 2 points in a week, I would never expect such a shift with no explainable cause.
[quote name='mykevermin']Actually...hmm. That is a 12% shift, making it even more improbable. Just like I wouldn't expect to see the YTD or SI ratios jump 2 points in a week, I would never expect such a shift with no explainable cause.[/quote] Like, maybe, a boost in consumer confidence and higher HD DVD sales from the Paramount announcement, along with Blu-Ray losing some Paramount sales that it would have otherwise have gotten? A change of a few thousand discs per week is enough to cover the spread. It's not completely unreasonable to imagine that the fallout from the Paramount announcement could be responsible for such a change.
To use another example, 300 has been 2:1 in Blu-Ray's favor for a long time (pretty much since release). two weeks ago it was 1.75:1, last week it was 1.7:1. This despite it now being included in the box with every new player (and thus not counting in the Nielsen totals). Something has changed, and it seems to have happened around the Paramount announcement.
But we've heard what you think of my theory, how does your theory that we're still at 66:34 jive with the numbers for the past 5-8 weeks? For simplicity, I'll list them since the last time the ratio was 66:34.
08/12 66/34
08/19 71/29
08/26 68/32 *Paramount announcement made during this week
09/02 56/44
09/09 60/40
09/16 61/39
09/23 63/37
09/30 54/46
10/07 68/32
Notice how in the 6 weeks since the Paramount announcement, the ratio has been lower than 66:34 for 5 (sometimes by a very wide margin), and barely lower for just one week? By contrast, prior to the announcement, the ratio was lower than 66:34 about half the time--18 out of 34, and higher about half the time. half higher than the mean and half lower is fairly logical. 83% lower and just 17% higher than the mean makes no sense whatsoever, unless the total volume on the one week is 5x what it was on the other 5 weeks. And even THAT assumes that if the one week is 68:32, the other 5 were 64:36. Since the ratio on the other 5 weeks wasn't that high even ONCE, volume on the one week has to be even MORE than 5x what the other weeks were.
Or, the mean is not 66:34.
To use another example, 300 has been 2:1 in Blu-Ray's favor for a long time (pretty much since release). two weeks ago it was 1.75:1, last week it was 1.7:1. This despite it now being included in the box with every new player (and thus not counting in the Nielsen totals). Something has changed, and it seems to have happened around the Paramount announcement.
But we've heard what you think of my theory, how does your theory that we're still at 66:34 jive with the numbers for the past 5-8 weeks? For simplicity, I'll list them since the last time the ratio was 66:34.
08/12 66/34
08/19 71/29
08/26 68/32 *Paramount announcement made during this week
09/02 56/44
09/09 60/40
09/16 61/39
09/23 63/37
09/30 54/46
10/07 68/32
Notice how in the 6 weeks since the Paramount announcement, the ratio has been lower than 66:34 for 5 (sometimes by a very wide margin), and barely lower for just one week? By contrast, prior to the announcement, the ratio was lower than 66:34 about half the time--18 out of 34, and higher about half the time. half higher than the mean and half lower is fairly logical. 83% lower and just 17% higher than the mean makes no sense whatsoever, unless the total volume on the one week is 5x what it was on the other 5 weeks. And even THAT assumes that if the one week is 68:32, the other 5 were 64:36. Since the ratio on the other 5 weeks wasn't that high even ONCE, volume on the one week has to be even MORE than 5x what the other weeks were.
Or, the mean is not 66:34.
Surprised this has not been posted yet.
Big change from February when they announced...
http://www.smarthouse.com.au/HD/HD_DVD/J8T5Q8M5?page=2
Big change from February when they announced...
http://kotaku.com/gaming/blu+ray/jb-hifi-swear-allegiance-to-bluray-236411.php
- Status
bread's done