| |
Archive for the ‘Blu-Ray Transfer’ Category
Monday, October 10th, 2011
Well, that was short. Today Netflix head honcho announced that the ill-named, ill-conceived, and finally, ill-fated service Qwikster was history. ”It is clear that for many of our members two websites would make things more difficult, so we are going to keep Netflix as one place to go for streaming and DVDs,” wrote CEO Reed Hastings. Gee, ya think?
I give credit to Netflix for reversing this decision so quickly, but it still baffles me how such business decision even made it this far. It worries me when no one considers what customers actually want. How about a running a survey or focus group before you make a significant decision like this? Oh well. Moving on…
 In other news, a recent report shows that Blu-Ray is growing significantly. In 2010, 38% of all Blu-Ray players were shipped to North America, according to research firm The NPD Group. The study also predicts that the quantity of shipped Blu-Ray players will surpass shipped DVD players by 2015, when 105 million units are expected to arrive in North America.
The report also contained news on the DVD recorder front. Unsurprisingly, DVD recorders are expected to be completely eliminated in most of the world, save for some units shipped to Japan, over the next three years. It’s actually been a few years since decent DVD recorders were available in the U.S.; for some reason, they have always been more popular in Europe than here.
Blu-Ray recorders are expected to arrive, however–although it’s generally believed that many consumers will move toward devices that lack physical media access altogether. Even now, many Blu-Ray players have the ability to connect to the Internet wirelessly, and many consumers may prefer to opt for a device that simply has a large hard drive or other form of digital storage.
But we’ve said it before and we’ll say it again. First, the U.S. needs a stronger and wider broadband system to make streaming video the norm for consumers. Until that happens, consumers will not rely completely on non-physical media.
And secondly, cloud-based solutions do not solve the question of how best to preserve family films and videos. It’s OK for mass-produced content, but what do you do with a tape that is only going to be shown to your family? Do you want it up in the cloud, physically separated from your house? And what does that mean for ownership when a faceless company has full access to your footage? (Not to mention…what happens if that company suddenly folds and your video vanishes because it’s not actually in your possession?) A lot of questions still remain as these facets of technology advance.
Sunday, December 5th, 2010
We recently discussed the future of DVD, and analyzed Blu-Ray’s benefits and drawbacks. While Blu-Ray may or may not become the next mainstream consumer video format, it’s worth remembering that it has already triumphed once: over HD-DVD.
 The Blu-Ray/HD-DVD format war occurred between 2006 and 2008. Both formats featured a larger-capacity DVD disc that could display high-definition video. The battle began when the blue laser diode was invented, which Sony developed into a new DVD format that it chose to call Blu-Ray.
While some companies allied with Sony to back the new disc, others, such as Toshiba and Microsoft, were vocally wary of the format’s price tag. These tensions came to a head when the Blu-Ray coalition turned down Microsoft’s interactivity feature, HDi, in favor of a different technique called BD-J (based on Java code). Shortly thereafter, Toshiba and Microsoft announced they were developing an alternative high-definition disc, which they dubbed “HD-DVD.”
Both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD were released to consumers in 2006. Blu-Ray scored its first major victory when Sony added the technology to its popular Playstation 3. By the time Toshiba and Microsoft had included HD-DVD in the Xbox 360 as well, Blu-Ray already had growing acceptance by Playstation users. But during the next few years, both formats grew slowly, as consumers waited out yet another format war.
Finally, Warner Brothers–one of HD-DVD’s most important backers–defected to Blu-Ray in 2008. Within the next few weeks, other manufacturers and studios abandoned HD-DVD as well. Toshiba eventually discontinued the format in February 2008.
Like all format wars, this one largely came down to smart marketing by Sony–same as JVC with VHS, all those years ago. But can Blu-Ray continue its success in a marketplace that’s moving to digital delivery? We’ll see.
Thursday, December 2nd, 2010
For movie fans, home video looks a lot different than it did in the late 1990s. Back then, DVDs were the hot thing, and the format quickly proved itself to be affordable, high-quality, and idiot-proof.
But as the last month of 2010 begins, video looks dramatically different. We see Blu-Ray attempting to supplant standard DVD as the physical delivery medium of choice. Meanwhile, downloads and streaming video are making inroads, both online and via services such as Comcast’s On-Demand. For consumers, it’s tempting to wait out the battles and see what becomes mainstream. DVD is still an incredibly viable choice for many people, since it’s nearly high-def (thanks to anamorphic transfers), cheap, compatible across all discs and players, and after almost 15 years of use, comfortable for everyone.
A format’s user-friendliness is the key ingredient to success. Quality may be the deciding factor for true videophiles, but not for the general public. If a format does not present a truly different, easier alternative for the consumer, the consumer will not embrace it.
A good example is the CD/MP3 and iPod war. CDs were popular for many years, for many of the same reasons as DVD. But MP3s and the iPod managed to decimate this nearly-perfect product because digital music is just plain easier. MP3 files don’t take up any physical space. You can take tons of music anywhere with no bulky CDs or audiotapes. In other words, MP3s and the iPod provide a fundamentally different–easier–alternative…even though there is no discernible quality difference.
 So in this light, is Blu-Ray the answer? Blu-Ray got off to a rocky start due to its format war with HD-DVD. Fortunately, that ended when HD-DVD was declared defunct a couple years ago. Statistics show that Blu-Ray is finally making some progress (see our recent post). But while Blu-Ray definitely offers a better-quality, high-definition picture and more interactive extra features, it’s no different to operate than a regular DVD disc.
A few years ago, Jeffrey Katzenberg of Dreamworks stated, “Blu-Ray and HD DVD are a niche business….They’re not going to become the next platform. I think for the general consumer, there is not a big enough delta between the standard DVD in terms of where it is today and the next generation.” He could be right. We posted recently about the little-known dustup between SACD and DVD-Audio:Â the reason these formats didn’t go anywhere is because they were not different enough from regular CD. Consumers didn’t see a good enough reason to switch. It’s not impossible that Blu-Ray could become the “SACD” to standard DVD in the same way.
So what about streaming and downloads? Yes, this method of video delivery would seem to be the “MP3″ counterpart for movies and TV. But remember the basic tenet of success: it needs to be simple. You can’t beat the ease of buying a movie at Best Buy and plopping the disc in your player. A good portion of the population still gets hives when they have to interact with a computer. I give credit to Comcast for its On-Demand system, which is undeniably easy to use–but it does operate via the traditional cable box. When a manufacturer manages to seamlessly connect the computer to the TV, that’s when we might see some changes.
Personally, I’m betting on Apple.
Saturday, November 27th, 2010
Earlier this month, Blu-Con was held in Beverly Hills (yes, there is a conference for everything!), and Andy Parsons, the chair of the Blu-Ray Disc Association’s U.S. Promotions Committee, updated the crowd on some statistics. In short:
– By the end of this year, 25 million U.S. households should have at least one Blu-Ray player connected to a TV. This number equals about one-fourth to one-fifth of the 115 million households in the United States. It also nearly matches DVD’s market penetration after its first five years (DVD was in 30 million homes at the end of 2002).
– Over the next five years, Blu-Ray is predicted to be in nearly half of U.S. households, and about a quarter of those players should be 3D-capable.
– Speaking of 3D, there are currently 19 Blu-Ray player models that possess 3D technology. By the end of 2011, most Blu-Ray players should be 3D-capable.
– There are about 3,000 programs currently available on Blu-Ray in the U.S. Sales numbers for Blu-Ray titles double every year. The sales of one recently-released title, Avatar, broke down as 80% DVD and 20% Blu-Ray (which is consistent with the household numbers mentioned above).
– Blu-Ray is also popular abroad. Europe has an estimated 10.9 million players, and is expected to have 30.7 million players by 2014. And the technology is huge in Japan, where 65% of all “video discs” are Blu-Rays (as opposed to only 35% regular DVDs).
What does this all mean? Well, first, that Blu-Ray is definitely here to stay for awhile. It’s doing well compared to standard DVD, and especially well considering the current economic climate. It certainly seems to be avoiding the fate of laserdisc.
What is more questionable? The 3D aspect. At the same convention, James Cameron discussed “autostereoscopic” 3D displays–largely considered the Holy Grail for 3D, because they would not require glasses. But at the same time, he cautioned that consumer deployment of the technology was probably a decade away, mainly because TVs would need to be double their current resolutions to handle the imagery. So while all these Blu-Ray players are 3D, that feature is going to have a much harder time catching on than regular HD.
Thursday, October 14th, 2010
A recent report by the NPD Group has both good news and not-so-good news for Blu-Ray advocates.
 First, the good news: 17% of U.S. households now contain at least one Blu-Ray player. This number has doubled since 2008.
Of course, Blu-Ray still has a long way to go before overtaking plain old standard DVD. A DVD player is estimated to be in 95% of U.S. homes, and DVD still ranks as the most successful electronics launch in history. (For some comparisons, 15% of households have a Netflix subscription, 85% of homes have a Windows computer, and 12% of homes have an Apple computer.)
Here’s the less-good news: Of those Blu-Ray households, only about half of them watch Blu-Ray discs on a dedicated Blu-Ray player. The other half view their discs on a Sony PlayStation 3. If Blu-Ray is going to continue to grow, analysts believe that it has to stand on its own, apart from gaming platforms. (In early 2010, however, two-thirds of consumers watched Blu-Ray on a PlayStation, so the “dedicated player” percentage is improving.)
Regular DVD purchase and rentals still naturally outpace Blu-Ray. The format remains popular with younger people and wealthier households, as well as with people who buy and rent the most movies. Not surprisingly, 85% of Blu-Ray owners also own an HDTV, and 25% of HDTV owners own a Blu-Ray player. They are also far more likely to have a broadband internet connection in their homes.
So what does this mean? Generally speaking, Blu-Ray still has a long way to go. Like laserdisc before it, it is still a format largely adopted by videophiles and those with above-average incomes. This separates it from DVD, which was quickly adopted by consumers across all income levels. Is Blu-Ray destined to be the laserdisc of the 2000s? Only time will tell.
Sunday, September 26th, 2010
As more and more classic films are released on Blu-Ray, it becomes apparent which big names are missing. Some of the most obvious are the Star Wars films. But recently, George Lucas finally announced that the saga will be released on Blu-Ray by the end of 2011.
 Unfortunately, Lucas only plans to release the late ’90s “special editions” of the original three films. For purists, this amounts to heresy. The special editions include all of Lucas’s questionable edits, including Greedo shooting first, Jabba grunting as Han steps on his tail, and–most horribly–Hayden Christensen replacing Sebastian Shaw as “Ghost Anakin” at the end of Return of the Jedi. (The original shot can be seen at right.)
It’s hard to believe, but way back in 1988, George Lucas actually testified at a congressional hearing regarding the colorization of classic black-and-white films. “Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten,” he told the panel.
What irony. This is the man who voluntarily wishes to wipe his original prints of Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi from existence.
Lucas has stated that he thinks it’s the director’s prerogative to go back and re-edit his or her own movie. In his case, he believes that the original versions they don’t represent his original vision, that it would be cost-prohibitive to make Blu-Ray transfers from the original films (as opposed to the already-upgraded special editions), and that the original negatives were permanently altered for the special editions, so it’s not possible anyway.
However, the 1977, 1981, and 1983 movies are the versions that fans remember. They are part of our childhoods…our “cultural history.” So it’s hard to see how Lucas’s position on black-and-white films makes sense, given that fact.
Personally, I would be OK with Lucas revising his films as much as he wanted as long as he always made the original cuts available in the same medium as well (such as Blu-Ray). But again, that violates his belief that the originals are flawed. Oh well–we’ll always have standard-def DVD! Who needs HD anyway?
Wednesday, September 8th, 2010
While Timeless DVD will be adding HD transfer service in the near future, we’d be lying if we didn’t admit that the vast majority of our orders and queries involve transferring plain old analog video tapes to DVD (or video files). But that’s completely normal, considering analog tapes were the primary format used by consumers over the past thirty-some years.
But as a business that intends to be around for a long time, we also frequently examine where DVD technology is heading. Manufacturers would like us to believe that Blu-Ray is the natural progression from DVD. But the fact remains that the consumer adoption rate for Blu-Ray is much slower than it was for DVD. In a recent poll, it was discovered that only 7 percent of American homes have a Blu-Ray player. Americans are still not sold on the idea of Blu-Ray, even though its picture quality is twice as good as regular DVD. Why is this?
In all likelihood, more polling research holds the answer: 51% of people of all ages watch at least some video content online. If television shows and movies are easily downloadable and takes up no space in your home, why invest in a new generation of optical media?
Internet video is a great idea, and likely explains why Blu-Ray has not taken off. Nevertheless, service providers have not cracked seamless Internet video yet. Bandwidth remains spotty with many providers, service plans, and areas. Plus, devices such as Apple TV and Roku have not yet mastered a simple and convenient user experience. Cable and satellite on-demand boxes are currently the most reliable providers in this area, especially for HD content–but they aren’t exactly “internet video.”
But who could have predicted the explosion of DVDs way back in 1990? Here in 2010, we have no idea what the prevailing video delivery method will be in 2030. But we’re sure looking forward to finding out!
Saturday, August 7th, 2010
DNR is a common term in electronics. It means “digital noise reduction.” One might think this might be valuable tool–and it can be. But DNR can also stir a lot of emotions for film preservationists and video transfer pros.
 At right is a basic example of DNR in action. The image on the right is the original film. The image on the left is the same image after extensive DNR processing. (Click the image for a larger example, which shows the details more clearly.)
Typically, film and video both show noise. This can range from simple grain in the picture to chroma noise (the red/blue mist that often hovers on top of the picture). Most of the better VCRs, such as the professional lines manufactured by JVC and Panasonic, include various settings for reducing noise. For instance, the JVC HR-S9000 series has a “TBC/DNR” button as well as a picture control setting, both of which adjust the amount of processing in the picture.
When using these types of filters in real time during a transfer, you generally search for a compromise, because removing noise always includes removing detail as well. But there is an ongoing debate about this in many video preservation forums. Some people would rather have more detail (such as the texture of the man’s face) than a smoothed-out, filtered picture. But other people are really bothered by excessive noise and want to completely remove it. So it generally becomes a matter of personal preference.
But both using and not using DNR can both be taken too far. Two DVDs that show the extremes of noise reduction are the releases of 1932′s Grand Hotel and 1942′s Now, Voyager. The DVD of Grand Hotel has very sharp detail in its scenes. But the grain and noise are so thick that they actually hamper the viewing experience. In one scene, Joan Crawford’s character is standing in a shadowed section of a scene, and her reaction to a critical plot point is all but obscured by the grain. In this case, more noise reduction would have helped improve the DVD by leaps and bounds.
By comparison, the DVD of Now, Voyager is a good example of DNR taken way too far. Apparently, this movie was ridiculously processed during transfer, over-filtered as well as over-sharpened. Strangely, for a movie from the 1940s, there is hardly a flicker of grain present in the entire film on DVD (a sure sign of too much DNR). The picture quality throughout appears incredibly sharp; but on closer inspection, skin and hair textures have been completely smoothed away. So it’s likely that the film experienced extreme DNR, followed by edge sharpening–both of which resulted in a presentation that no 1940s director of photography would have created.
In recent years, the transfer of classic films to Blu-Ray has ignited a new round of this argument. There is a trend of studios over-processing older movies for Blu-Ray release, and many film fans and cinephiles are not happy about it. Many studio “suits” reportedly believe that any grain in the picture is evil and should be stripped out (probably thinking that modern audiences expect every HD movie to look like it was made last year). As you can see from the images above, 100% noise removal is not always a good thing–especially where older films are concerned.
DNR should be used carefully to remove grain. As in the Grand Hotel example, if the grain in the film is coarse or distracting–particularly to the extent that it affects an actual scene–it should be removed. But on the other hand, film also has inherent grain in it. If you can’t see any grain at all when moving frame-by-frame in an older film, then it’s likely been scrubbed within an inch of its life–and this just isn’t natural. At that point, not only has the natural film grain been removed, but the textures in actors’ skin and hair and other details in the actual movie as well.
The bottom line is that every film or video tape is different. For videotapes, each tape requires its own settings, which includes choosing the best VCR to play it as well as the most ideal processing settings. At Timeless DVD, we try to strike a balance between removing some noise but not over-processing or over-softening the image. Much of video transfer is made up of compromises, and DNR is a great example.
Thursday, July 8th, 2010
The golden age of DVD is over–at least where Hollywood is concerned. DVD sales have been dropping on a yearly basis, and the rise of Blu-Ray and streaming video have not come close to making up the missing revenues. However, a few days ago, the accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers released a report claiming that the state of packaged media is actually not as dire as everyone thinks.
The report predicts that by 2014, consumer spending on all movie outlets–including theater tickets, DVDs, Blu-Rays, and more–will grow to a record $107 billion. (Spending is currently at $85 billion per year.) Pretty impressive, eh? PricewaterhouseCoopers further states that 3D revenue is expected to boost theater attendance, and Blu-Ray growth, short theater-to-DVD timeframes, and low-price Redbox-style rentals will all invigorate home video. Even DVD sales are expected to begin rising–although the report also predicts that digital downloads of movies will triple from the current take of $364 million per year to $1.1 billion in 2014.
PricewaterhouseCoopers is a very respected and reputable source, so it’s hard to discount what they say, even in the face of other evidence. But most home video analysts believe that regular movie sales, on DVD or Blu-Ray, are down by double digits, with TV shows on DVD selling poorly in particular. The current recession has much to do with this; spending on entertainment is often one of the first expenses to be cut in a household. And where television on DVD is concerned, most TV shows that people want have already been released on DVD, so they’ve already been purchased. So aside from new releases of recently-ended seasons, it only makes sense at this point in time that sales will slow.
If studios want consumers to purchase more DVDs or Blu-Rays, they have to give people what they want. For new releases of DVDs of movies or TV shows, it’s real, valuable extra features. Too many regular DVDs or TV on DVD sets just include the bare-bones movie or episodes these days–not enough for cash-strapped consumers to want to spend their hard-earned money on them. If that’s what you’re releasing, it better be at a seriously discounted price.
For Blu-Rays, what consumers want is the best video quality possible and truly better special features from what appeared on the original DVD releases. Again, this includes never-before-seen footage and documentaries–features that are of real interest to the fans of that particular movie. You have to give people a reason to re-buy films they already own on regular DVD! If the Blu-Ray transfer was simply created from an HD cable or satellite transmission, that’s not good enough for real quality Blu-Ray. And just adding quirky features to a Blu-Ray that allow you to check an actor’s IMDB listing or watch videos on your iPhone doesn’t cut it (especially when these features often crash your Blu-Ray player at the same time). Nobody buys a Blu-Ray for the interactive features. If you choose to buy a Blu-Ray player and re-purchase your favorite films on Blu-Ray discs (for $35 a pop), you want to see your flicks in the best picture and sound possible.
In this economy, people are renting movies from Netflix and Redbox, or streaming them, or simply watching their good old purchased DVDs. That is why sales have been flat. It’s good news that PricewaterhouseCoopers thinks that sales will improve, because that’s a hint that the economy may be improving as well over the next five years. But if studios want sales to really pick up, they should pay attention to what customers really want from their TV on DVD and Blu-Rays. Then maybe they’ll see an upswing that has nothing whatsoever to do with the current economy.
Saturday, June 19th, 2010
There’s a fallacy out there about Blu-Ray DVDs: they have the best video quality possible. It’s not true. By far, the number one complaint about Blu-Ray from frequent disc purchasers is that the quality is not always the best it can be.
 Why is this happening? For some reason, most Blu-Ray discs that come out these days are loaded with random extras, such as a features that let you use your iPhone as a remote for your Blu-Ray player, or look up recipes with BD-Live. But many of these releases are very disappointing in terms of their audio and video quality–which is the main feature that video enthusiasts look for.
Is is possible that studios are adding all these extra features to try to get more average consumers to buy discs? Absolutely. But here’s the problem: we’re in the middle of a recession, and “average consumers” are not purchasing Blu-Ray right now. They’re still buying or renting plain old standard DVD.
The folks who are spending their hard-earned money on Blu-Ray releases are film and tech enthusiasts. These are the people who buy all the special editions and box sets and view collecting awesome DVD or Blu-Ray releases as a hobby. And by far, what these enthusiasts want are their favorite films on Blu-Ray in the absolute best quality possible. Period!
Ideally, a film on Blu-Ray should look as good as it did using the very best projector on the day that it opened–whether that was in 1940 or 1970. That doesn’t mean it needs to be absolutely perfect. But studios need folks to run these conversions who have real film restoration experience. Too many older films are released on Blu-Ray that have noise reduction taken to extremes, with the grain normally present in old movies completely buffed away. Not every movie needs to look like it was shot in HD. Black and white films can look absolutely beautiful on Blu-Ray, even with much of the grain intact; just look at any of the Criterion releases for a good example. (Clearly, Criterion is one studio that values experienced film transfer technicians, and not added bells and whistles.)
Unfortunately, many studios seem to think that running 5-year-old HD transfers of their films through a DNR-heavy digital process will create an acceptable Blu-Ray transfer. And then they simply load up the disc with picture-in-picture viewing modes, streaming options, and other interactive crap, and charge more money for the disc. Well, this is not a great strategy, given who is purchasing these discs–and over the long-term, will result in lower and lower sales for Blu-Ray, particularly if the economy does not improve.
|
|
|
