Hi-Def and Home Theater Thread 2

[mikeszekely]

Bah, just don't buy it.

I'm not, but it's kinda irksome to support a film when it's released only to have a better version come out in less than a year.

[bandit29]

Speaking of the eventual double dip

Our good friend Bill Hunt is at it again, and today he has more information regarding the upcoming release of the 'Lord of the Rings' films. This bad news is that when Warner delivers the films sometime late next year, they will be of the theatrical versions of the films. The good news is that this decision was made because director Peter Jackson wants to save the extended versions for a super Blu-ray boxset to be released near the theatrical release of 'The Hobbit'.

With the original extended cut box sets being of the utmost quality, I have high hopes that Jackson will once again produce a magnificent Blu-ray box set for the extended cuts of the film. Until then (which will be about two years if 'The Hobbit' stays on schedule, enjoy the theatricals cuts on Blu-ray sometime next year.

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=2055

What a bunch of BS. Now I just might wait for the extended versions...

[eugimon]

Speaking of the eventual double dip

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=2055

What a bunch of BS. Now I just might wait for the extended versions...

blegh.. I'm waiting. Personally I think the extended versions are far superior to the theatrical cuts.... especially Two Towers.

[Uxi]

Got Band of Brothers and Clone Wars on Blu-ray yesterday. Only had time to watch 4 eps of Band of Brothers. Definitely a great buy.

[Wes]

You paid for one edition; steal the extras online. Fight the power!

[Uxi]

Eh, I'll just hang onto the DVD of the EE's and get them on Blu-ray when they're out.

[Ladic]

K-mart has this Sony Blu-ray player going for $179 on Black Friday.

Black Friday Listing

http://www.blackfriday.info/sales/kmart-th...-friday-ad.html

K-mart's current listing (so you know which model it is)

http://www.kmart.com/shc/s/p_10151_10104_0...xKeepCash&=

Correction: This deal will be available on Thanksgiving Day, Thursday Nov. 27th.

you could actually get this cheaper, I don't know if they still ahve the promotion at amazon.com, but you could get this bluray player plus 4 movies for $200.

[eugimon]

just got an email from netflix saying they're dropping HD-DVD support altogether now as of dec. 15 2008. dang, that took a long time.

[mikeszekely]

just got an email from netflix saying they're dropping HD-DVD support altogether now as of dec. 15 2008. dang, that took a long time.

Were they trying to charge you an extra buck a month like they are for Blu-ray? I decided the PS3 upconverts DVDs nicely enough that they could kiss my grits on that one.

[eugimon]

Were they trying to charge you an extra buck a month like they are for Blu-ray? I decided the PS3 upconverts DVDs nicely enough that they could kiss my grits on that one.

yeah, they're charging extra for blu-ray... I don't mind so much.

[sharky]

Were they trying to charge you an extra buck a month like they are for Blu-ray? I decided the PS3 upconverts DVDs nicely enough that they could kiss my grits on that one.

Nice one, Flo.

[Wes]

One buck? Eh that's nothing. Though I got this blockbuster thing for 6 months for free.

[mikeszekely]

One buck? Eh that's nothing. Though I got this blockbuster thing for 6 months for free.

A dollar extra a month isn't such a big deal in the sense that if they were just raising the base price across the board for everyone a buck to stay profitable, I wouldn't bat an eyelash.

But the whole "Blu-rays are more expensive, so we're going to have to charge you more if you want them" excuse doesn't quite fly. For starters, as the "Very long wait" status for most of the movies in my queue will attest to, they buy fewer Blu-rays. And while Blu-rays do cost more, we're not buying them, so you don't have to pass the extra expense on at a 1-1 rate, or even a 1-10 rate. After the movie's been rented enough times, the initial cost has been recovered and it's making money on the investment.

So, at the end of the day, pay a dollar extra a month for the "privilege" of waiting longer for the move, just to have a moderately better picture? Especially when Netflix for me is mostly for comedies and stuff I'd only want to see once, and most of the movies I'd want to see in HD I'm buying anyway? Pass.

[eugimon]

A dollar extra a month isn't such a big deal in the sense that if they were just raising the base price across the board for everyone a buck to stay profitable, I wouldn't bat an eyelash.

But the whole "Blu-rays are more expensive, so we're going to have to charge you more if you want them" excuse doesn't quite fly. For starters, as the "Very long wait" status for most of the movies in my queue will attest to, they buy fewer Blu-rays. And while Blu-rays do cost more, we're not buying them, so you don't have to pass the extra expense on at a 1-1 rate, or even a 1-10 rate. After the movie's been rented enough times, the initial cost has been recovered and it's making money on the investment.

So, at the end of the day, pay a dollar extra a month for the "privilege" of waiting longer for the move, just to have a moderately better picture? Especially when Netflix for me is mostly for comedies and stuff I'd only want to see once, and most of the movies I'd want to see in HD I'm buying anyway? Pass.

meh, I rent plenty of popcorn flicks that I'd never buy from netflix and the HD experience is worth an extra dollar a month. I rarely shuffle new releases to the top of my queue so by the time I get to them availability isn't an issue.

[Wes]

A dollar extra a month isn't such a big deal in the sense that if they were just raising the base price across the board for everyone a buck to stay profitable, I wouldn't bat an eyelash.

But the whole "Blu-rays are more expensive, so we're going to have to charge you more if you want them" excuse doesn't quite fly. For starters, as the "Very long wait" status for most of the movies in my queue will attest to, they buy fewer Blu-rays. And while Blu-rays do cost more, we're not buying them, so you don't have to pass the extra expense on at a 1-1 rate, or even a 1-10 rate. After the movie's been rented enough times, the initial cost has been recovered and it's making money on the investment.

So, at the end of the day, pay a dollar extra a month for the "privilege" of waiting longer for the move, just to have a moderately better picture? Especially when Netflix for me is mostly for comedies and stuff I'd only want to see once, and most of the movies I'd want to see in HD I'm buying anyway? Pass.

If you're not getting them then I'd understand. But Blurays always have a higher selling price unless on sale. It's all what Netflix has to pay for them.

[mikeszekely]

If you're not getting them then I'd understand. But Blurays always have a higher selling price unless on sale. It's all what Netflix has to pay for them.

Except that we're not buying, we're renting. If we were buying Blu-rays, then the extra cost of stocking them would rightly be passed to the customer. But we're just renting. It doesn't matter what the cost is, after X number of rentals the cost is recovered and it's pure profit after that. Netflix also mitigates the extra cost by buying fewer of them. If Netflix buys 50 copies of a DVD for a certain price, and say they need 100 rentals on that title to break even on that investment, they may only buy 5 copies of the Blu-ray, and they may make that investment back in 25 rentals.

The "we're charging you more to rent because Blu-rays are more expensive to buy" line smacks of an excuse to milk a demographic that they figure likely has more income and possibly will think less about paying the extra. I, for one, refuse to be taken advantage of.

[Dangard Ace]

6 James Bond Bluray movies for $65. Today Gold Box only.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00...anandscathed-20

[BoBe-Patt]

ok, I don't know if anybody encountered this problem, but I just bought a Sony Bravia 46" W4100 about a week ago. Last night when I was playing Gears of War 2, a blue vertical line appeared close to the middle of the screen going from the top to the bottom of my screen. It would pop up here and there and sometimes it would stay on for a good minute or so then go away. This just happened last night. Anybody have any idea what this problem is?

[eugimon]

I had a similar problem with my samsung, I think it had something to do with the stand since when I rotated the screen it went away. I would contact sony and get tech to look at it or just return in.

[BoBe-Patt]

well I have the warranty that I bought with it, so I can return it anytime. I was thinking of just seeing how it is for a week and if it still happens, then bring it back to where I bought it to exchange.

[eugimon]

it took a while for my replacement set to arrive and in that 2 months or so, the frequency and duration of the line decreased but it would still pop up after the TV had been on for a while.

[Wes]

Except that we're not buying, we're renting. If we were buying Blu-rays, then the extra cost of stocking them would rightly be passed to the customer. But we're just renting. It doesn't matter what the cost is, after X number of rentals the cost is recovered and it's pure profit after that. Netflix also mitigates the extra cost by buying fewer of them. If Netflix buys 50 copies of a DVD for a certain price, and say they need 100 rentals on that title to break even on that investment, they may only buy 5 copies of the Blu-ray, and they may make that investment back in 25 rentals.

The "we're charging you more to rent because Blu-rays are more expensive to buy" line smacks of an excuse to milk a demographic that they figure likely has more income and possibly will think less about paying the extra. I, for one, refuse to be taken advantage of.

Well how do you know how much profit they're getting? If you conceed that blurays are costing them more then you conceed that there is extra expense. When a business's expenses go up, they're absorbed and/or paid for by the customer. I don't know they're business model and I'm sure it's different than the chains that have physical locations. So I can only guess they found that $1 was the better way to do it. Though yeah if you're not getting the movies you want there's no reason to pay for less.

[mikeszekely]

Well how do you know how much profit they're getting? If you conceed that blurays are costing them more then you conceed that there is extra expense. When a business's expenses go up, they're absorbed and/or paid for by the customer. I don't know they're business model and I'm sure it's different than the chains that have physical locations. So I can only guess they found that $1 was the better way to do it. Though yeah if you're not getting the movies you want there's no reason to pay for less.

Simple logic. Sure I don't have any numbers, but logically if you're not selling, then you don't need to restock. A limited inventory can service a theoretically unlimited customer base.

In simple terms, if you buy a DVD for $15, and charge everyone a dollar to rent it (which is about the cost if you have the 1-at-a-time, unlimited per month plan), then you're going to make money the sixteenth time it's rented. If you buy a Blu-ray for $30, it's going to take twice as many rentals, but the 31st person would still be profit. And if you have a large pool of customers, the cost can be offset by buying fewer Blu-rays. Two DVDs would take as long as one Blu-ray to make money. And I either Netflix does stock fewer Blu-rays or the demand for Blu-rays exceeds DVDs, because new release movies are quickly available on DVD, while the waiting list for new releases on Blu-ray is often weeks.

Now, we could debate Netlfix's model by figuring the average cost of a Netflix subscription, the average number Blu-rays that person would watch in a month, the cost of that many movies plus postage against the the cost of the subscriptions, and try to estimate how many people would have to watch each movie before Netflix would recover the cost. And again, while I do concede that Blu-rays cost more than DVDs, I only concede that the number of people who have to rent it before Netflix makes money on it is a higher number than the number of people who would have to watch a DVD. As long as enough people rent the movie, though, and I suspect they have more than enough people ready to rent the movie, it still becomes profit.

Look, at the end of the day, Netflix is a business. If they think they can make more money, or make their profit faster, if they charge Blu-ray users a dollar a month premium, that's certainly within their rights. And if you, as a customer, don't mind paying the premium, that's fine too. It's your choice, and you're money, and maybe like eugimon it's worth it to you. But I think you, or Netflix, or anyone else would have a hard time arguing that it's necessary for Blu-rays to remain profitable for them. So when Netflix says "we're going to charge you more because Blu-rays cost more," I'm betting that it's less "Blu-rays are more expensive so we can't afford to offer them if we don't charge a premium" and more "Blu-ray players, HDTVs and home theater equipment necessary to maximize the HD experience that Blu-ray offers are rather expensive, so people who rent Blu-rays are likely have more disposable income and therefore less likely to object to us charging them more if we point out that Blu-rays cost more than DVDs."

[jenius]

You should also consider the diminishing returns on a rental. In the first month of a release there are a bunch of people wanting to rent a movie. In subsequent months the number drops off precipitously. So, Netflix needs to have enough fo a title to meet all the demands in the first month and is then left with a bunch of stock that barely gets rented. There's lots of variables but it only makes sense that the Blu-Ray industry is more expensive than the normal DVD industry.

[bandit29]

Simple logic. Sure I don't have any numbers, but logically if you're not selling, then you don't need to restock. A limited inventory can service a theoretically unlimited customer base.

In simple terms, if you buy a DVD for $15, and charge everyone a dollar to rent it (which is about the cost if you have the 1-at-a-time, unlimited per month plan), then you're going to make money the sixteenth time it's rented. If you buy a Blu-ray for $30, it's going to take twice as many rentals, but the 31st person would still be profit. And if you have a large pool of customers, the cost can be offset by buying fewer Blu-rays. Two DVDs would take as long as one Blu-ray to make money. And I either Netflix does stock fewer Blu-rays or the demand for Blu-rays exceeds DVDs, because new release movies are quickly available on DVD, while the waiting list for new releases on Blu-ray is often weeks.

Now, we could debate Netlfix's model by figuring the average cost of a Netflix subscription, the average number Blu-rays that person would watch in a month, the cost of that many movies plus postage against the the cost of the subscriptions, and try to estimate how many people would have to watch each movie before Netflix would recover the cost. And again, while I do concede that Blu-rays cost more than DVDs, I only concede that the number of people who have to rent it before Netflix makes money on it is a higher number than the number of people who would have to watch a DVD. As long as enough people rent the movie, though, and I suspect they have more than enough people ready to rent the movie, it still becomes profit.

Look, at the end of the day, Netflix is a business. If they think they can make more money, or make their profit faster, if they charge Blu-ray users a dollar a month premium, that's certainly within their rights. And if you, as a customer, don't mind paying the premium, that's fine too. It's your choice, and you're money, and maybe like eugimon it's worth it to you. But I think you, or Netflix, or anyone else would have a hard time arguing that it's necessary for Blu-rays to remain profitable for them. So when Netflix says "we're going to charge you more because Blu-rays cost more," I'm betting that it's less "Blu-rays are more expensive so we can't afford to offer them if we don't charge a premium" and more "Blu-ray players, HDTVs and home theater equipment necessary to maximize the HD experience that Blu-ray offers are rather expensive, so people who rent Blu-rays are likely have more disposable income and therefore less likely to object to us charging them more if we point out that Blu-rays cost more than DVDs."

meh.. its a dollar..besides if the blu-ray movie sucks you are only out a 1.00 as opposed to 25-30.00 if you bought it...

[mikeszekely]

You should also consider the diminishing returns on a rental. In the first month of a release there are a bunch of people wanting to rent a movie. In subsequent months the number drops off precipitously. So, Netflix needs to have enough fo a title to meet all the demands in the first month and is then left with a bunch of stock that barely gets rented. There's lots of variables but it only makes sense that the Blu-Ray industry is more expensive than the normal DVD industry.

Sure, but while we're considering variables, we might as well consider that Netflix has been renting Blu-rays for a year now, and they're only now deciding that they should charge more for them?

I'd guess it's because, despite pundits predicting Blu-ray's demise, they're starting to take off. I'm reading that a lot of people are buying HDTVs (maybe in anticipation of the digital switch?) despite the financial crisis, and I hear that a lot of retailers are tossing in the Blu-rays for added incentive.

The question then, is an increased demand screwing with the math and forcing Netflix to stock extra Blu-rays that people quit watching, forcing Netflix to raise the price to remain profitable, or is Netlfix taking advantage of an increased demand for Blu-rays to make an opportunistic extra buck?

I'm inclined to believe the latter.

But what really floors me is how everyone here seems so quick to rush to Netflix's defense. Maybe I'm being a little cynical about Netflix's motives, and even a bit cheap with my decision to dump Blu-ray rentals, but I've readily conceded that Netflix is within their rights to charge more and the decision to pay more or dump Blu-ray is a personal one. To each his own, right? But man, you guys act like I insulted your mothers.

[eugimon]

meh.. its a dollar..besides if the blu-ray movie sucks you are only out a 1.00 as opposed to 25-30.00 if you bought it...

yeah and it's not a dollar per disc, it's a dollar per month on top of your existing plan regardless of the plan, so 1 disc at a time or 4 discs at a time, still 1 dollar extra per month. so, in my case, it's like 10 cents extra per blu-ray. I just can't get worked up over something like that.

edit:: It IS disappointing, especially considering that now there's only 1 HD format, Netflix costs should have theoretically gone down and as mikeszekely pointed out, blu-rays are penetrating the market and because I suspect that the fees are actually being used to prop up features like "watch instantly" and there are still titles I have to wait on, like American Gangster which still has a "very long" wait time... but at the end of it all, netflix has been fast, consistent and has offered a wide variety of titles. But even with those... it's still just 1 dollar a month.

Edited November 16, 2008 by eugimon

[jenius]

To each his own, right? But man, you guys act like I insulted your mothers.

LOL, a few people disagree with you and you equate it to that? A touch defensive. Sorry you don't like Netflix charging an extra $12 a year, I hope your not renting Blu-Rays works out great for you.

[Wes]

To each his own, right? But man, you guys act like I insulted your mothers.

It's the Internet if we had something better to do other than argue over a dollar we wouldn't be one the Internet.

[mikeszekely]

It's the Internet if we had something better to do other than argue over a dollar we wouldn't be one the Internet.

Okay, that's something we can ALL agree on!

[sharky]

Not saying it's a good player or anything, but it's nice to see prices dropping lower and lower.

Memorex BD player $139

http://www.woot.com/

The deal is today only BTW.

[mikeszekely]

Not saying it's a good player or anything, but it's nice to see prices dropping lower and lower.

Memorex BD player $139

http://www.woot.com/

The deal is today only BTW.

I guess it's hard to predict, what with the poor economic climate and all, but I heard from Kotaku (no idea what source they used) that Blu-ray sales quadrupled in October. If the prices stay low for the holidays and enough people are suckered into new TVs for the digital switch, maybe Blu-ray will really take off in 2009.

[Gaijin]

Got my Firefly BD set. Only gave it a quick glance but it is indeed a nice step up from the DVD's. Especially the sound. Effects are of course a bit washed out compared to the crisp live action but there's no way around that one. Worthy.

Hey, it's Firefly. Serenity in December!

[bandit29]

Black Friday Best Buy sales..dunno how accurate but some good deals if they are true

Transformers Blu-Ray Disc - $9.99

Samsung 46" Class 1080P LCD HDTV - $1099.99

http://www.blackfriday.info/sales/best-buy...-friday-ad.html?

[mikeszekely]

Black Friday Best Buy sales..dunno how accurate but some good deals if they are true

http://www.blackfriday.info/sales/best-buy...-friday-ad.html?

I went to my local Best Buy ONCE on a Black Friday. BF's are kinda nuts around here in general, but that was the worst. There were ZERO parking spaces maybe 10 minutes before they even opened, and by the time I worked my way back to the TV section, they were already sold out of what I wanted.

Transformers Blu-ray for $10 would almost motivate me to do it again. That is, if I didn't already own it.