backtop


Print 73 comment(s) - last by .. on Aug 30 at 8:00 PM

Most major studies offer films on the service

Downloading movies to own may well be the future of movie sales and rentals. Before we get to that point, there are several things that will have to be fixed, namely the slow and often lacking broadband infrastructure in America.

DivX and a download to own (DTO) movie company Film Fresh announced today that Film Fresh will be the first online store to sell major Hollywood movie titles in the secure and easy to playback DivX format. The DivX format allows the films to be downloaded to millions of DivX certified devices already on the market from the PS3 to numerous PMPs and Blu-ray players.

The films will be transferable on DVD, USB drives, and SD memory cards as well as being streamable over a home network. Film Fresh offers a wide variety of films from major studios like Lionsgate, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, and Warner Bros.

"Our partnership with DivX goes back to the founding of Film Fresh. We have always believed that DivX offers the best download choice for consumers, since it gives people the freedom to own and watch films on a wide variety of electronic devices from many different manufacturers,” said Rick Bolton, founder and Chief Executive Officer of Film Fresh. “It's a good fit with Film Fresh's central mission--expanding the audience for film. Download-to-own is going to play a critical role in the future of film distribution, and Film Fresh will provide the films people want to see, in whatever form they want to see them."

Currently available titles for purchase include films like Pineapple Express, 17 Again, 3:10 to Yuma, Hancock and Watchmen and many more. The company also offers titles from independent studios.

"Through our agreements with Film Fresh and the studios, we are able to bring Hollywood movies in the high-quality DivX format to U.S. consumers for the first time," said Kevin Hell, Chief Executive Officer of DivX, Inc.

According to Engadget, DRM for the DivX files is tied to a specific user's ID, so playing back video files on more than one device should not be an issue. Also, the movies will only initially be made available with stereo sound which is quite a letdown for many audiophiles out there.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Bypass Theaters
By DeathBooger on 8/26/2009 11:01:28 AM , Rating: 3
Now all they have to do is bypass movie theaters and charge a premium for brand new films so I don't have to pay $10 to listen to some kid scream because some idiot didn't get a babysitter and they have a real winner.




RE: Bypass Theaters
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 8/26/2009 11:02:36 AM , Rating: 5
Agreed 100%. I've never understood the need for parents to bring their screaming kids to R-rated movies.

If I was going to a Spongebob movie, I could understand, but not when I'm trying to watch something like Inglourious Basterds.


RE: Bypass Theaters
By quiksilvr on 8/27/2009 4:09:08 AM , Rating: 3
Makes me wish that all R rated movies are replaced with NC-17 so things like that can be avoided.


RE: Bypass Theaters
By ayat101 on 8/26/2009 12:03:33 PM , Rating: 5
You are kidding right? For me there is no comparison between the picture and sound quality in a cinema and even a good video system at home. The cinema is better.

For me for this to be even half way worth it:

1. It would have to be HD or better (i.e. one of the new comeing HD formats).

2. A sound track in a formt to match the HD picture.

This will require much faster internet for much larger files than this mentions...

I will pass on this offer as it stands.


RE: Bypass Theaters
By mmntech on 8/26/2009 12:58:03 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, you can't beat the theatre experience, at least for some films. Big 50' screen, big sound, big everything. Sigh. Somebody really needs to open a movie house where they show only old epic movies like Ben Hur, Lawrence of Arabia, Star Wars.

Since I work Wednesday to Sunday I have the luxury of going to weekday matinées. Weekday evenings are also a good time to go if you want to avoid kids. Never go Saturdays or "cheap night".


RE: Bypass Theaters
By etherreal777 on 8/26/2009 1:39:42 PM , Rating: 4
Cinemas suck. Other than the one digital screen we have here, they are mostly pretty terrible. Out of focus, scratches on the film, that annoying "cigarette burn" every five seconds (thanks Fight Club, ever since I watched you, I notice it EVERY TIME), and terribly uncomfortable seats, why does anyone think this experience is better? Even my moderate home theater is much more enjoyable in comparison. The only reasons to hit a cinema is for the must-watch-now movies (Star Trek) or take the wife on a date...


RE: Bypass Theaters
By tastyratz on 8/26/2009 3:46:52 PM , Rating: 5
Agreed 100%. The only time I go to a theater is to do imax or 3d for a real experience - and for that I have only gone once in the past 3 years. My home theater is more comfortable, better looking, better sounding, and more enjoyable than almost all my local theaters. With advances in home theaters in recent years and consumer availability paying 10 bux + 5 for popcorn at an inferior establishment is just a joke.


RE: Bypass Theaters
By Kougar on 8/27/2009 1:24:31 AM , Rating: 2
The modern digital screen theaters are pretty nice, if you can find any. They opened a single digital screen IMAX-sized theater here, watching Star Trek on that was simply perfect .

Perfect, if one could ignore the trekies that cheered or broke out in applause at half of the witty retorts.


RE: Bypass Theaters
By ayat101 on 8/26/2009 1:45:32 PM , Rating: 2
The same thing is my constant wish... but I suspect distributing prints gets costly, so it's not going to happen... at least not until digital cinemas and digital movies spread around. So, perhaps soon :)

I would also add some more recent movies into the mix. I am a little more lucky than most in that I live in a place where they have an independent cinema that shows movies from all over the place, not just "Hollywood" releases.


RE: Bypass Theaters
By bhieb on 8/26/2009 12:58:55 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
...picture and sound quality in a cinema and even a good video system at home


Then I'd say you have not seen a "good" home setup. I greatly prefer my theater room to any theater.

The sound is calibrated to my taste and not turned down so the grandma's don't complain. I worked at a theater for years and the THX spec for sound level was 7 o 10, but we rarely ran it over 5 do to complaints. Also since I did work at a theater, I notice framing issues, out of focus, and scratches all of which I don't have to deal with at home.


RE: Bypass Theaters
By ayat101 on 8/26/09, Rating: -1
RE: Bypass Theaters
By etherreal777 on 8/26/2009 1:42:43 PM , Rating: 4
1. Most cinema use film, which doesn't have a resolution, Per Se. And since the quality of the film degrades rapidly, it often looks horrible.

2. Size isn't everything.

3. I find most cinemas to have the acoustics of an elephant's digestive tract.

4. See #3.


RE: Bypass Theaters
By ayat101 on 8/26/09, Rating: -1
RE: Bypass Theaters
By bhieb on 8/26/2009 2:21:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Film has a resolution

So what is it? Since your spewing out BS surely you have the answer? Gonna use widgets (wds) to represent your response. It is 1000000000000x1000000000 wds.

Please find me a definition of resolution for and optical medium. You can start here. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-...

Now the lens has a limit, but the film itself has no resolution.

quote:
I find most cinemas' acoustics better than even good home theaters.


Go in a theater and clap your hands when it is empty. Most I've been in echo badly. Back in the THX days you were right, because an outside party had to certify the room (air vents had to be properly located in the spec). However very few if any modern rooms are THX certified and are build by the lowest bidder. If you think any big chain is building double isolation into their walls your mistaken. Stay back once and pull back the fabric it is cinderblock back there. You think it has better acoustics because of those "powerful" speakers you love so much.


RE: Bypass Theaters
By ayat101 on 8/26/09, Rating: -1
RE: Bypass Theaters
By MrX8503 on 8/26/2009 3:38:26 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, but the theaters around you must suck.

There are two Cinemas in my town, both are 20 theater cinemas and are all digital . Quite frankly it blows away any home setup.

I used to work at one of the theaters and the money they spend on these systems is in the millions. You cannot replicate this at home unless you're a million-aire.


RE: Bypass Theaters
By bhieb on 8/26/2009 2:02:06 PM , Rating: 3
To each their own I guess.

1-4 of your list are a sole product of room/screen size. There is an optimal seating distance for a set screen size (it has to do with the way your eye perceives the screen). So with that in mind bigger is NOT better. Physiologically your eye appreciates a given size at a fixed distance. Resolution is a direct factor of size 1080p on a 5" screen is of no use, so would a cinema resolution on my 110".

So by that rational the one size fits all setup of a 500+ seat room is a no brainier that it has to make compromises to service that many. So you sir are "full of it" if you think a room tuned for 500+ can be as good as one tuned for 4. Using simple logic you are 1 person (maybe 4 with friends). Something designed for just you and your friends will at least match that which has been designed to serve the masses. Do you think a custom tailored suit fits better than one off the rack in general sizes?

No doubt that takes more money, but per my post below you do not have to be uber rich to have something pretty damn close. AND you don't have to play Russian roulette every time you go with the crowd and occasional quality issues (framing/scratches...). No they don't happen all the time, but when I'm shelling out a few hundred (sitter, movie, popcorn candy drink easily hits $200+) on date night with the wife, a disappointing outing has and will happen.

I'd rather boil some lobster or cook a good steak, put the kids down early and end up eating better and saving at lest $100 and stay at home.


RE: Bypass Theaters
By ayat101 on 8/26/2009 2:27:51 PM , Rating: 3
How does the number of people in a theater affect the resolution of the picture? The picture in a cinema has much more resolution and thus detail than even a 1080p video. It's a fact.

... there is no bad effect from the number of people...

Unless you sit right up against the screen... or right at the back... or to the side. You get the idea. *I* pick the seats towards the middle, about a 1/4 to 1/3 from the front. For the same reasons I either get in early, or go to less well attended sessions. It's a no brainer.

I do not buy junk food either... I know cinemas are supposed to make more money from this stuff, but tough luck in my case.


RE: Bypass Theaters
By bhieb on 8/26/2009 3:21:11 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
How does the number of people in a theater affect the resolution of the picture? The picture in a cinema has much more resolution and thus detail than even a 1080p video. It's a fact.


It affects it because of the size of the room and therefore screen. Using your numbers from above and a 30' tall screen. So 6000 lines / 360" = 16.6 lines per vertical inch. Now 110" diag is 66" high / 1080 = 16.3 not that far off (if you can pick out the .3 lines then send me the number of your eye doctor).

We are talking opinions here, and obviously you like going and I don't. My point in the debate is that just because it is a cinema does not automatically make it better. Bigger screen, bigger sound, bigger room <> better quality.

You can get very close at home, and the random variables do not exist. Aside from the "other people" annoyances. On the technical side for example I always get to sit in the seat that the calibration microphone was in. Unless your the first in the door you cannot guarantee that. In fact in a bigger room the mic was not calibrated to 1 point, the timing is set so that all of the viewers have an OK sound, at the cost of no one having a perfect one.

That is why the number of people matter. The room is engineered for 500+ and compromises have to be made. In my room my chair is right in the middle at the correct distance away, I am guaranteed that spot, in a cinema that spot does not exist (visually it does but not acoustically).


RE: Bypass Theaters
By teriba on 8/26/2009 5:30:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sorry... but what you say makes no sense...

No, what you said makes no sense.

quote:

1. No home theater has anywhere close to the resolution of a cinema.

The human eye can only resolve so much. Even with a 100" screen at 15' viewing distance you can't tell the difference between 1080p and anything higher.

http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

quote:

2. No home theater has close to the size of the cinema screen.

So? Viewing angle is the only thing that matters. This just based on your screen size and viewing distance. In a theatre you need a massive screen because you are sitting 50' away from it. THX recommends a 36 degree viewing angle. Anything more or less is not good.

quote:

3. No home theater (unless you live in a mansion and have built your own... but not if you really had to work at a cinema) has the acoustics of a cinema.


You have to be kidding here. It is far easier to design an acoustic system to handle a small number of seats than a large number of seats. In a cinema your audio experience is going to be vastly different depending on where you are sitting. 99% of the time you will get FAR better acoustics at home if you design your system well (closed room, acoustic panels placed well, etc).

quote:

4. Again unless you are millionaire, but not on a cinema worker's wages, no home theater has the quality or power of speakers found even in an average cinema.

Again, this is suited to the size of the room. You can get much better quality speakers in a home theatre than you can get in a cinema, they just aren't as loud. Due to the room size you don't need the same output though. The end result is a similar volume level and better clarity in a home theatre.

quote:

You may prefer your home theater, but your preference is not based on rational facts.

Your preference is only based on incorrect facts.

quote:

I am not sure what cinema you worked for, but no cineams I go to have the problems you mention to the extent you imply.

I suspect you are just full of it.

I suspect you have never seen a real home theatre.


RE: Bypass Theaters
By jimbojimbo on 8/27/2009 3:31:15 PM , Rating: 2
I think ayat101 owns a theater and is losing money.


RE: Bypass Theaters
By bhieb on 8/26/2009 1:40:46 PM , Rating: 3
Just to give some numbers here is what I have in my setup (and IMHO is as good as a cinema experience). I am not an uber audio/video nut. I wanted something that was affordable and comparable with a theater. Obviously a light controlled room is a must (and the deal breaker for most), but even with the track lighting up all the way the picture is good (great when it is at 25%).

$1800 (picked mine up originally with $300 rebate there are probably better/cheaper ones now since it has been a few years)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=...

$3000 (speakers other options definitely exist for cheaper)
http://www.axiomaudio.com/epic60_500.html

$700 (receiver I don’t use a dedicated amp and this is more than enough for my wife to yell turn it down from the other part of the house)
http://www.crutchfield.com/p_580TXS806B/Onkyo-TX-S...

$800 (screen 110”)
http://www.carada.com/ProductInfo.aspx?productid=P...

$35 (30’ HDMI to run to projector {if your spending more for a GIGANTOR cable that transmits 1&0s where noise is irrelevant your a moron})
http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id...

$135 (speaker wire)
http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id...

Throw in your Bluray player of choice.

Total: ~$7000

If you look at just the video side I spent $2635 on the projector/scree/cable. Easily more affordable than a good 50" LCD and over 2x the size. One draw back is the $400 bulb that has to be replaced every 3000hrs, but at least it is serviceable.

Not posting this to brag or anything, just to say to all of you with that perfect room just sitting there to GO DO IT!! Pulling the cabling can be tricky work, but the rest is plug and play and it is well worth it. Just be ready to be the community Super Bowl party host for years and years to come.


RE: Bypass Theaters
By ayat101 on 8/26/2009 1:56:19 PM , Rating: 2
Good set up. You seem to love it... and they say love is blind. This explains your views and preference ;)


RE: Bypass Theaters
By bhieb on 8/26/2009 2:09:47 PM , Rating: 2
Nice compliment??? Are you solely here to troll that is twice you have insulted me for no reason.

I did not say you could not spend $50K on a setup, just that you can get pretty close on a reasonable budget.

Good luck next blockbuster getting there 2 hours early so you can get that seat that is acoustically/visually appropriate for all that size that you think matters most.

Happy trolling though have fun!


RE: Bypass Theaters
By ayat101 on 8/26/2009 2:19:19 PM , Rating: 2
Troll? Hardly.

You have a nice set up for a home theater. You like it, clearly. For the same reasons your views can biased... I thought the meaning in the post above was clear...

I am not saying home theaters are bad. It's just that cinemas are better.


RE: Bypass Theaters
By Lazarus Dark on 8/26/2009 7:45:55 PM , Rating: 2
I hate to get in the middle of this, but I just think you really have not been in a good home theater. I spent about $2000 on speakers and amps and all of my friends say it sounds better than the sound at the newest local Imax with its "11,000 WATT" speaker system. This is pure a/v science. A small room with excellent speakers WILL ALWAYS sound better than the okay speakers in a theater made for a couple hundred people. It is quite frankly the best audio I have ever heard anywhere period.

Wait... did your wife say you can't have an HT and you're trying to justify why you go to the theater? :P


RE: Bypass Theaters
By neogrin on 8/27/2009 11:03:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wait... did your wife say you can't have an HT and you're trying to justify why you go to the theater? :P


ROFL


RE: Bypass Theaters
By theapparition on 8/26/2009 2:01:54 PM , Rating: 2
Decent system.

At least someone here has the sense to spend the most money on a system on the speakers. I've seen so many spend uber amounts on the electronics and forget the most important part.

Weakest part of your systems is that Onkyo. I've never liked thier equipment and wonder if you have the heat and noise issues that are prevelent on the -606 and -706 models?


RE: Bypass Theaters
By bhieb on 8/26/2009 2:26:32 PM , Rating: 2
I actually have a Denon, but it is disconinued so I could not find the link. I just picked one with high enough watts to run without a a discrete amp. I know with the speakers I probably should "invest" in a better quality sound output but it is good enough IMO.


RE: Bypass Theaters
By Netscorer on 8/26/2009 3:28:55 PM , Rating: 2
I've seen numerous people spending $$$ on speakers and placing them in a room with zero acoustics. Might have as well throw money out the window.


RE: Bypass Theaters
By chrnochime on 8/26/2009 11:05:48 PM , Rating: 2
Go to an audio specialty dealer(of course not Magnolia WTH) that'll do a blindfolded hearing test. Ask them to do test from 1000 a speaker to 5k. I won't bother with higher than that because frankly there are very few ppl willing/capable of spending above 5k.

Now see which one you actually find to have good audio quality. What you find good might actually be overboosted and colored sound reproduction, not how the original should be. And accurate reproduction might not actually sound good to some. The 5k might not actually be built better, acoustically, than the 1k, btw.

In short unless the speakers have frequency response graph AND you have the ears to tell that the expensive ones are indeed better AND they are actually accurately reproducing the original recording, you're only kidding yourself when you say you KNOW the 5k one is great.


RE: Bypass Theaters
By zerocool84 on 8/26/2009 6:14:48 PM , Rating: 2
It's not worth it now-a-days to go to the movies. Kids screaming, people on their cellphones, people talking or having sex, uncomfortable chairs, movie going in and out, it just plain sucks and not worth the price they charge you. I don't go to the movies any more cus of this.


RE: Bypass Theaters
By Creig on 8/26/2009 12:20:50 PM , Rating: 3
Or have to fork out $15 for a large bag of popcorn and a soda. :/


RE: Bypass Theaters
By FITCamaro on 8/26/2009 12:35:29 PM , Rating: 3
I went and saw Orphan last weekend and had to tell two black chicks who were....being stereotypical black chicks....to shut the hell up.

I'm sorry but I do not need your commentary on the movie. Laugh, scream, whatever if you want, but otherwise STFU.


RE: Bypass Theaters
By StraightCashHomey on 8/26/2009 1:27:57 PM , Rating: 2
I went and saw Orphan last weekend and had to tell two black chicks who were....being stereotypical black chicks....to shut the hell up.

ha ha ha.. this happens at every movie.


RE: Bypass Theaters
By alpensiedler on 8/26/2009 12:46:43 PM , Rating: 2
Although I have bore witness to some pretty rude behavior in some theaters, I definitely don't agree. Ayat101 has the right idea. Theaters sound better and look better, and they are definitely much bigger than anything I have to watch movies on at home. Also, I live in a small town, where the movie theaters are almost empty (no rude people) during matinées and only cost $5.50. Plus there is something about the atmosphere that lets you get into the movie more.

On another note, what about that judge that just passed something saying you can't copy protected movies to dvds? I assume this solution is some how legal? Or does this even apply in this case?


RE: Bypass Theaters
By AlexWade on 8/26/2009 12:51:32 PM , Rating: 2
I already bypass the theaters, but only because there is nothing that I want to see. Hollywood has run out of good ideas for movies. I may be odd, but what I care about in a movie is, not how the special effects are, but how good the story is. The last movie I paid to see in a theater was The Dark Knight.


RE: Bypass Theaters
By chrnochime on 8/26/2009 10:53:52 PM , Rating: 2
You forgot about the part where if you're not in the mood to watch free pr0n acted out by horny cheap/poor teenagers lying in the front row, then you won't have to hear their moaning.

Yeah I ran into that once, watching Dark Knight.


Yuck
By Spivonious on 8/26/2009 11:17:13 AM , Rating: 5
Stereo sound only? That fact alone will cause me to not even bother browsing their site.




RE: Yuck
By ClownPuncher on 8/26/2009 11:24:58 AM , Rating: 2
Only initially, but yea, not worth looking into until they fix that. The '80's are over.


RE: Yuck
By cubby1223 on 8/26/2009 12:00:46 PM , Rating: 4
You'd be perfectly content with a crappy divx encode, but yet stereo sound is what will kill the deal?


RE: Yuck
By Bateluer on 8/26/2009 12:58:43 PM , Rating: 2
You can encode DivX in HD quality.

Stereo only sound does suck though, not worth looking at until that's addressed.


RE: Yuck
By dali71 on 8/26/2009 12:02:04 PM , Rating: 5
MKV or GTFO...


RE: Yuck
By StevoLincolnite on 8/26/2009 2:15:26 PM , Rating: 3
MKV is a Container, not a Codec, it usually contains something like MP4, DivX, x264 video streams combined with separate Audio Streams, subtitles etc'.

Personally I hate MKV, Refuses to play on the Xbox 360 via my USB Hard Disk Drive, and streaming it via Media Center makes it look like molasses.


RE: Yuck
By Netscorer on 8/26/2009 5:16:51 PM , Rating: 2
You should really hate MS for not supporting the most popular container, rather then direct your anger at poor MKV folks. Anyway, there are plenty of transcoders that would quickly (<1min) change the container without sacrificing any video or audio quality.


RE: Yuck
By StevoLincolnite on 8/27/2009 2:08:50 AM , Rating: 2
I wasn't directing my "Anger" at anyone, MKV is a great container, it just doesn't work with what I want it to work with right out the box, and it's not just Microsoft that doesn't support the container.
Most Home entertainment video players like Blue-ray players, DVD players don't support it either, I've seen a few NAS storage solutions that did.

Perhaps like DivX we will have to wait a year or two before the adoption level is decent enough.


RE: Yuck
By chrnochime on 8/26/2009 11:08:50 PM , Rating: 2
Or maybe you should re-encapsulate the video/audio in a different container. If you don't even know that mkv is NOT a video format, but rather a container like a previous poster has noted, go do more study on this.


RE: Yuck
By StevoLincolnite on 8/27/2009 2:05:20 AM , Rating: 2
I'm well aware of that, but why should I bother when there are better alternatives; container wise, than having to stuff around with a program to get my desired results?
Why not just download it in the correct and compatible container in the first place that meets my needs? Makes more sense to me.


A good start but..
By Operandi on 8/26/2009 12:13:53 PM , Rating: 2
Dose Divx have any support or future support for HD? Thats something I would consider a must going forward, and of course the before mentioned surround sound.

Also the price... Seems like new titles are $14.00, older films are $10, thats too high. I would suggest something along the lines of $14 for films in HD res, $10 for DVD res (with surround sound), and sub $10 for older flicks.




RE: A good start but..
By theapparition on 8/26/2009 12:30:01 PM , Rating: 2
DivX is just a codec so yes they have support for HD.

I'll agree on the price. What are these companies thinking? For a few dollars more on a new title (or even same price on sale), I can get the "real" DVD, with case and bonus features, plus get the surround sound tracks. Also, don't have to deal with any DRM issues....none. Can loan this out to anyone I want, or play it in the car's DVD player without having to incur my time or expense of burning this onto DVD.

Pricing is going to kill this. I see plenty of downsides, and not one positive towards most DTO movie services right now.

BTW, pricing will also kill BluRay. Most (mass consumers, not enthusiasts) don't see the value of an extra $10 per movie, and sales have been lackluster at best. Price it at $2-3 more, and you'll finally see BR really take off.


RE: A good start but..
By bplewis24 on 8/26/2009 12:55:23 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
BTW, pricing will also kill BluRay. Most (mass consumers, not enthusiasts) don't see the value of an extra $10 per movie, and sales have been lackluster at best. Price it at $2-3 more, and you'll finally see BR really take off.


It amazes me that people still post stuff like this despite the actual facts, which are readily available for anybody that cares to be informed.

1) Very few blu-rays MSRP for $10 than their DVD counterpart, even day and date titles are usually $5 more. And the pricing of blu-ray titles has been quite competitive for some time. Evidence: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=1706...

2) Sales have not been "lackluster at best," and they have already been "taking off." http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_displa...

quote:
Blu-ray Discs are showing some real clout. The action hit "Watchmen," from Warner Home Video, shot to the top of the national home video sales and rental charts its first week in stores, with 36% of its total unit sales coming from the high-definition edition.

Universal Studios' "Coraline" snagged the No. 2 spot on all three charts -- the Nielsen VideoScan First Alert and Blu-ray Disc sales charts, and Home Media Magazine's rental chart -- and even though the edgy animated hit didn't play straight to the young-male demo that swarmed all over "Watchmen," a solid 18% of its unit sales came from Blu-ray Discs, a surprisingly strong showing that indicates the format is fast moving out of the early adopter phase and into the mainstream.


Brandon


RE: A good start but..
By marvdmartian on 8/26/2009 1:24:53 PM , Rating: 2
So if BR is running ~$20, and DVD ~$15 on a new release, who in their right mind is going to spend $14 on a download? Even in HD, it's not worth it if you end up burning it to a blank HD disk.

Personally, I don't bother with BR because of the cost, and the fact that for me, my dvd in the upconverting player looks good enough. Would I be impressed with the quality of BR versus upconverted dvd? Yes, more than likely. But the price difference in the media and player isn't worth the upgrade to me.

And it's attitude like that that will keep BR from becoming the sole media seller in this country.


RE: A good start but..
By Operandi on 8/26/2009 1:51:57 PM , Rating: 2
Having a HTPC I would go for the download if they could offer a 1080P for the price of a physical DVD, under cut the price with a 720P download.


RE: A good start but..
By theapparition on 8/26/2009 1:51:23 PM , Rating: 2
May I present to you Brandon:

Exhibit #1

:)
Someone who thinks what they have now is "good enough" and the price isn't worth the perceived value.


RE: A good start but..
By theapparition on 8/26/2009 1:48:11 PM , Rating: 2
1)I don't care about "deals". You can always get a lower price somewhere, even on that DVD you are comparing it to.

However, Retail prices of BR are almost universally $10 or more for the same title. Since it seems people are incapable of separating themselves from an argument and seeing the "mass consumer" point of view, most people who buy movies do so at Wal-mart or such. They don't scour AVS forums for the latest Amazon sales (nice link BTW). And what sort of selection does WallyWorld offer on BR? Not a whole lot. Same is true for most Brick and mortar retailers. Even places that make thier living with the latest electronics (BestBuy) carry 10x more DVDs than BR.

2)Sales haven't met BRG's expectations, not to mention Sony's outlandish expectations of 50% marketshare in 2009.
Sales have increased, but are on pace (based on some experts) 6% total worldwide marketshare this year.
Currently, BR is running about 9% marketshare in the US. Top Tier titles are running slightly higher, closer to 12%. I think that total marketshare after the holiday season will stay consistant with 9-10%.

http://forums.highdefdigest.com/high-definition-sm...

You call me misinformed, which I take offence to. Yet I think you wear slightly rosed colored glasses on the situation.
I however, despite what you may think, am not in the "hate BR" camp.
I have several BR players, and a library of over 100 BR movies (and over 100 HD-DVD ones). I want BR to succeed and think movie studios are hampering adoption by thier pricing scheme. You can't deny that if BR discs were priced equal towards DVD, it would have a signfigantly larger marketshare.

I wasn't trying to express my own opinion. I was trying to express my views that if they don't change thier act, they may find themselves limited to a niche format.
You can either agree with that opinion, or disagree, but don't call me misinformed.


RE: A good start but..
By Netscorer on 8/26/2009 3:38:42 PM , Rating: 2
Just two random movies that came to my mind:
Blood Diamond - Amazon DVD $9.99; Amazon Blu-Ray $17.99 (80% markup)
Dark Knight - Amazon DVD $11.99; Amazon Blu-Ray $20.99 (75% markup)

Somehow, I don't see in reality that Blu-Ray prices are anywhere close to be competitive. Your studies must be using the same magic formula that determines food price inflation. Studies say that food does not increase in price, yet, any sane person visiting supermarket on a regular basis can attest to the complete opposite.


RE: A good start but..
By Avatar28 on 8/26/2009 1:08:04 PM , Rating: 2
It depends on the movie, but as Brandon points out, most BluRay movies can be had for less than $10 more than DVD. If you go to retail you may see the BD IS $10 more ($29 vs $19) but the $19 DVD is often a more basic version. The 2-disc DVDs are usually about $25 and the BD is comparable to that.

Also I find that I am much more inclined to purchase the BD when they include a DVD copy with it (Disney is really good about this). In fact, I usually won't think twice about the extra money if it includes the DVD too.


RE: A good start but..
By theapparition on 8/26/2009 1:55:25 PM , Rating: 2
My point exactly that retail sales are usually at a $10 premium, and let's face it, if you're buying retail, your not the most informed consumer and don't care about those "extras".

I'll completely argee with the BR+DVD. Disney as you said is great with this, at least they recognize the fact that no-one has BR players in the car (or portable players) to keep the kiddies entertained.


DivX vs DIVX
By bplewis24 on 8/26/2009 11:04:14 AM , Rating: 5
How funny would it be if DivX succeeded as a format delivery standard where DIVX once failed?

Brandon




RE: DivX vs DIVX
By acase on 8/26/2009 12:56:35 PM , Rating: 2
Ahh they capitalize it differently...thought I was having a major deja vu.


Too expensive; quality too low
By ipay on 8/26/2009 1:05:40 PM , Rating: 1
I just checked the price for Ironman (the first movie listed at the site). $10. I can buy the physical DVD elsewhere for $8. For a standard DVD quality download (about 4GB), I'd expect to pay no more than $2. See NetFlix.

If they want $10 for a download, it will need to be the 50GB 1080p version. However, as noted in the article, Internet infrastructure is not up to dealing with that much data. A single download would blow some ISP caps.

The other issue is the DRM. The service needs a provision to turn it over to a neutral third party (e.g. the Electronic Frontier Foundation), in the event the service closes shop. I'm not paying for "download to own" if the ownership evaporates with the website.




RE: Too expensive; quality too low
By Avatar28 on 8/26/2009 1:15:54 PM , Rating: 2
From what I can tell, you get your device's registration code from it's setup menu. You then activate the device using your divx player software. It creates a disc that you play on the player to complete the activation. After that, you can watch any movies you purchased on the device, it won't have to be activated for each one.


RE: Too expensive; quality too low
By Renski on 8/26/2009 1:18:05 PM , Rating: 1
I wouldn't pay that much for that... I think $3-5 dollars would be the magic number for me. Although considered illegal, these divx movies are out on torrents and any p2p site or program out there. It would be beneficial to attract the people that normally download this stuff like apple did with iTunes.


so
By sprockkets on 8/26/2009 2:54:13 PM , Rating: 2
We get Divx vids, which suck royally compared to even the most basic of h.264 profile material since that allows deblocking, Divx's major flaw.

How nice of the MPAA to give us again, sub standard material and show us how clueless they are about what year it is.




RE: so
By ayat101 on 8/26/2009 3:05:54 PM , Rating: 2
Probably for the reason that when they sue the next downloader/pirate, they can claim in court that they provide LEGAL downloads, and thus there should be no reason to "steal" :)


By SuckRaven on 8/26/2009 1:33:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Most major studies offer films on the service


Gotta love those movie studies. I watch their products on my doovde player. =)




Quality not an issue
By scrapsma54 on 8/26/2009 6:49:56 PM , Rating: 2
As long as Some people can have a hard copy of a movie say blu-ray, I don't find this a let down. The whole purpose of owning a physical copy is to own premium content on a separate digital space.




the irony
By glennc on 8/27/2009 12:02:26 AM , Rating: 2
i find it funny that the studios are finally embracing divx when it was originally proposed as a dvd rival. looks like it may actually outlast dvd in the long run.




By on 8/27/2009 9:09:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
http://www.bbcloth.com
http://www.bbcloth.com
(air jordan, air max, shox tn, rift, puma, dunk sb, adidas) nike jordan shoes 1-24 $32
lv, coach, chane bag $35
COOGI(jeans, tshirts, hoody, jacket) $30
christian audigier(jeans, tshirts, hoody) $13
edhardy(shoes, tshirts, jeans, caps, watche, handbag) $25
Armani(jeans, tshirts,) $24
AF(jeans, coat, hoody, sweater, tshirts)Abercrombie & Fitch $31
quote:
http://www.bbcloth.com
http://www.bbcloth.com




By on 8/27/2009 9:09:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
http://www.bbcloth.com
http://www.bbcloth.com
(air jordan, air max, shox tn, rift, puma, dunk sb, adidas) nike jordan shoes 1-24 $32
lv, coach, chane bag $35
COOGI(jeans, tshirts, hoody, jacket) $30
christian audigier(jeans, tshirts, hoody) $13
edhardy(shoes, tshirts, jeans, caps, watche, handbag) $25
Armani(jeans, tshirts,) $24
AF(jeans, coat, hoody, sweater, tshirts)Abercrombie & Fitch $31
quote:
http://www.bbcloth.com
http://www.bbcloth.com




By on 8/28/2009 10:21:58 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.crispstyle.com Sell:Ed/POLO tshirt$13,jean$30,handbag$35,jordan shoes$32,jean$30 Free shipping!

the website kicksquality :/ for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the

nike,jordan,prama,****, also including the jeans,shirts,bags,hat and the

decorations. All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive,

and also can accept the paypal payment.,after the payment, can ship within short

time.

free shipping
competitive price
any size available
accept the paypal

our price:
gstar coogi evisu true jeans $36;

coach chanel gucci LV handbags $32;

coogi DG edhardy gucci t-shirts $15;

CA edhardy vests.paul smith shoes $35;

jordan dunk af1 max gucci shoes $33;

EDhardy gucci ny New Era cap $15;

coach okely **** CHANEL DG Sunglass $16;

http://www.crispstyle.com/productlist.asp?id=s28 ( JORDAN SHOES )

http://www.crispstyle.com/productlist.asp?id=s1 ( Ed Hardy )

http://www.crispstyle.com/productlist.asp?id=s5 ( Bikini )

http://www.crispstyle.com/productlist.asp?id=s6 ( T-Shirt )

http://www.crispstyle.com/productlist.asp?id=s29 ( Nike_shox )

http://www.crispstyle.com/productlist.asp?id=s21 ( Air_max_man )

http://www.crispstyle.com/productlist.asp?id=s65 ( Handbag )

http://www.crispstyle.com/productlist.asp?id=s11 ( Jeans )

http://www.crispstyle.com/productlist.asp?id=s6 ( Polo tshirt )




By on 8/30/2009 8:58:01 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.crispstyle.com

bikini$25

(air jordan, air max, shox tn, rift, puma, dunk sb, adidas)

nike jordan shoes 1-24 $32

lv, coach, chane bag $35

COOGI(jeans, tshirts, hoody, jacket) $30

christian audigier(jeans, tshirts, hoody) $13

edhardy(shoes, tshirts, jeans, caps, watche, handbag) $25

Armani(jeans, tshirts,) $24

AF(jeans, coat, hoody, sweater, tshirts)Abercrombie & Fitch $31

http://www.crispstyle.com




By on 8/30/2009 8:00:49 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.crispstyle.com

bikini$25

(air jordan, air max, shox tn, rift, puma, dunk sb, adidas)

nike jordan shoes 1-24 $32

lv, coach, chane bag $35

COOGI(jeans, tshirts, hoody, jacket) $30

christian audigier(jeans, tshirts, hoody) $13

edhardy(shoes, tshirts, jeans, caps, watche, handbag) $25

Armani(jeans, tshirts,) $24

AF(jeans, coat, hoody, sweater, tshirts)Abercrombie & Fitch $31

http://www.crispstyle.com




"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki