An interesting case on copyright, EULA, ...

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I think one of the issues for older TV shows is the print quality of the master copy really just doesn't support Blu-ray or higher. It was shot for standard TV quality screens, not theater quality projectors.

Eventually, you get to the point where something is good enough. When Blu-ray came out, I upgraded a fair number of my favorite movies to Blu-ray. I upgraded my TV to 4K a month or so ago. The picture quality is amazing, but I really can't tell much of a difference between 4K streaming movies and HD streaming movies. I'm probably not going to replace any of my Blu-Ray movies with 4K versions.

I agree that you get to the point where things are good enough. In general, I prefer old movies to current ones. Because of that' I'm not in a hurry to upgrade my TV to a 4K one.

I do understand that the picture quality is better, but I will admit I had a hard time when I first started seeing things on Blu-ray. Old movies looked too sharp. Like they were shot on video. Bladerunner was a sight to behold though.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Can you show me an example where the movie is available in only Blu-ray and is available in a combo pack and it costs more?

I don't buy movies much any more, but I've not seen instances like that. These are usually current popular movies that are released in combo packs and I don't tend to see them released both as a combo and as a stand=alone.

You might see them released as DVD only and combo. But rarely the higher end format.

Yeah, that is just it. You always get a stupid bundle unless it is a dvd nobody wants.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I think one of the issues for older TV shows is the print quality of the master copy really just doesn't support Blu-ray or higher. It was shot for standard TV quality screens, not theater quality projectors.

Eventually, you get to the point where something is good enough. When Blu-ray came out, I upgraded a fair number of my favorite movies to Blu-ray. I upgraded my TV to 4K a month or so ago. The picture quality is amazing, but I really can't tell much of a difference between 4K streaming movies and HD streaming movies. I'm probably not going to replace any of my Blu-Ray movies with 4K versions.

If you want a fair comparison, compare a HD stream on a 1080p screen with a 4K stream on a 2160p. If you watch anything on a current 4K TV the up conversion does a pretty good job - there is no simple stretching and repeating pixels anymore.

Unfortunately my internet is too slow to allow 4K streams - I too have recently upgraded my old TV (ancient 46" Samsung) to a new 4K one (cheap 55" TCL).

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Yeah, that is just it. You always get a stupid bundle unless it is a dvd nobody wants.

But the question is, is that stupid bundle more expensive than just, say, a Blu-ray release would be? I don't think so.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

But the question is, is that stupid bundle more expensive than just, say, a Blu-ray release would be? I don't think so.

Yeah, because it was a good excuse to raise the base price. They did not lower the price of new release DVD, just added a more expensive BD. However they want to justify it, by bundling and adding "extra value", they made sure that forever the price difference from new DVD compared to new BD is $5. Add another $5 for the 4K.

It guarantees that DVD never dies out, and I think that is the ultimate goal.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Yeah, because it was a good excuse to raise the base price. They did not lower the price of new release DVD, just added a more expensive BD. However they want to justify it, by bundling and adding "extra value", they made sure that forever the price difference from new DVD compared to new BD is $5. Add another $5 for the 4K.

It guarantees that DVD never dies out, and I think that is the ultimate goal.

I don't think so. Before there was 4K or digital copies were a big thing, movies came out on Blu-ray and Blu-ray always cost more than the DVD release. They continue to do so. CDs always cost more than cassettes. Hardcovers cost more than paperbacks. I don't expect the superior format to cost the same.

And as mentioned, big new releases go on sale for $15. It looks like the typical MSRP is $24.99. Considering thirty years ago new releases on VHS cost roughly the same, that just doesn't seem outrageous to me.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Yeah, because it was a good excuse to raise the base price. They did not lower the price of new release DVD, just added a more expensive BD. However they want to justify it, by bundling and adding "extra value", they made sure that forever the price difference from new DVD compared to new BD is $5. Add another $5 for the 4K.

It guarantees that DVD never dies out, and I think that is the ultimate goal.

I think that eventually, a manufacturer gets to a price point they just don't want to go under. At that point, they start adding features rather than dropping price. One sees this in other items as well. The actual manufacturing cost of printing a DVD or Blu-Ray is likely a very small percentage of the price at this point.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by davidfor

As another programmer, I can't decide if that is "It's OK to misspell" or "If the spelling checker tells me it's spelt correctly, it is".

From a programming standpoint, it doesn't matter how you spell it, as long as you are consistent

[crich70]

One thing I've noticed about Disney DVD's is that they are always at around the same price. Around here it's around $19.99 for a Disney film no matter how old the film itself is. Most other studios lower the price of a movie after it's been out on DVD for a while, but not Disney.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by crich70

One thing I've noticed about Disney DVD's is that they are always at around the same price. Around here it's around $19.99 for a Disney film no matter how old the film itself is. Most other studios lower the price of a movie after it's been out on DVD for a while, but not Disney.

Disney has their library of animated classics. For the most part, people buy these for their kids which means that there is an ongoing demand that might not be there for the other types of movies. Parents are always going to want to get Cinderella, Snow White, et al. Kids watch those things over and over and over again in the backseat of the car, so those DVD's are in demand.

One can buy the complete Raiders series (all 4 movies) for $40 Blu-ray or $31 for DVD. The Mummy collection, also 4 movies is $17 for Blu-ray. It's interesting how fast prices drop for block busters that are 20 years old. The exceptions are those movies where the DVD has become either a collector's items or is fairly rare. Some of the old martial arts flicks from the 70's - 90's can command hundreds of dollars.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

From a programming standpoint, it doesn't matter how you spell it, as long as you are consistent

I generally create aliases for my common typos, which can freak people out at times.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Disney has their library of animated classics. For the most part, people buy these for their kids which means that there is an ongoing demand that might not be there for the other types of movies. Parents are always going to want to get Cinderella, Snow White, et al. Kids watch those things over and over and over again in the backseat of the car, so those DVD's are in demand.

The only reason they stay in such high demand is the misguided belief that the Disney version is any better than a no-name version. A collection such as this one:

https://www.amazon.com/10-Movie-Prin.../dp/B00AOCDDGC

works just as well for kids to watch them over and over again.

[SleepyBob]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

The only reason they stay in such high demand is the misguided belief that the Disney version is any better than a no-name version. A collection such as this one:

https://www.amazon.com/10-Movie-Prin.../dp/B00AOCDDGC

works just as well for kids to watch them over and over again.

Not really. That's like saying text-to-speech recordings work just as well as professionally narrated audiobooks. There's no comparison in the quality of the animation, let alone other aspects.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

The only reason they stay in such high demand is the misguided belief that the Disney version is any better than a no-name version. A collection such as this one:

https://www.amazon.com/10-Movie-Prin.../dp/B00AOCDDGC

works just as well for kids to watch them over and over again.

I was going to see E.T., but I watched Mac and Me instead. They're essentially the same, right?

Man, if you're looking for alternate animated versions of fairy tales, at least find good ones.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

The only reason they stay in such high demand is the misguided belief that the Disney version is any better than a no-name version. A collection such as this one:

https://www.amazon.com/10-Movie-Prin.../dp/B00AOCDDGC

works just as well for kids to watch them over and over again.

Well, those are at least better than watching Barney over and over again. I really didn't get the Die Barney die die die news group until my nephew wanted me to watch Barney with him some 10+ years ago.