Question:
Yes, is this the beginning of the end of VHS:clap:
http://www.dvd.reviewer.co.uk/news/news.asp?Index=6343&Section=3
I wonder how long it will be before major releases appear on DVD only.
I would expect several years yet. After all, you can even still buy music on tape despite the fact that almost everyone buys CDs these days.
Out of interest, does anyone know how quickly the DVD/VHS sales ratio changed compared to the CD/Vinyl sales ratio?
AFAIK
CD first outsold old formats (vinyl+tape) in 1991
For argument's sake we'll call that 8 years after introduction (could say 10 but 8 realistically)
Faster than tape outselling vinyl - 1983. Toss up when tape was really introduced.
No idea on how the DVD/VHS ratio is going.
Wonder what the ratio for Pan & Scam vs Widescreen were though:confused:
Originally posted by Ono
Wonder what the ratio for Pan & Scam vs Widescreen were though:confused:
It would be interesting to know how many people actively chose one version over the other, and how many just saw the box and picked it up.
Originally posted by Ono
Wonder what the ratio for Pan & Scam vs Widescreen were though:confused: These are UK sales so it wouldn't be an issue with LOTR.
R1 split is around 60/40 in favour of widescreen according to a thread on hometheaterforum
Originally posted by Ono
Wonder what the ratio for Pan & Scam vs Widescreen were though:confused:
Widescreen: 100%
P&S: 0%
Unlike Harry Potter, LOTR was released WS-only on DVD in the UK :D
Given that the WS version of Harry Potter thrashed the P&S verion in terms of sales, I doubt that studios will be bothering with dual-format releases in the UK again - unlike in the US, where they seem to be gaining a foothold :oh-hum:
-- J.
Originally posted by John Nelson
Widescreen: 100%
P&S: 0%
Unlike Harry Potter, LOTR was released WS-only on DVD in the UK :D
Given that the WS version of Harry Potter thrashed the P&S verion in terms of sales, I doubt that studios will be bothering with dual-format releases in the UK again - unlike in the US, where they seem to be gaining a foothold :oh-hum:
-- J.
Is that because take up of WS in the usa is slow? That would explain by lots of US TV is 4:3. eg new series like six feet under
ZX
That is exactly the reason ... WS TV's are ery expensive over there as they are High definition sets...
Therefore the market is predominantly 4:3 sets and the average punter wants his screen filled (go figure)...
Originally posted by Fawlty
That is exactly the reason ... WS TV's are ery expensive over there as they are High definition sets...
Therefore the market is predominantly 4:3 sets and the average punter wants his screen filled (go figure)...
What is wrong with them? They're went to the moon in 1968 and now they're so slow to take up any new techonolgy. Mobile phones are another good example!
ZX
Originally posted by ZX81
What is wrong with them? They're went to the moon in 1968 and now they're so slow to take up any new techonolgy. Mobile phones are another good example!
ZX
They went to the moon in 1968? WTF did we get to see in 69 then? :p
I know about 5 people who cancelled the VHS version because they wanted to wait for new release with the extra footage on.
Dave
can't people just change a setting on there dvd players to make the picture fill the screen even if the disc is widescreen? If not then this would be the best solution because all those :nuts: people can watch Pan & Scan
Originally posted by ZX81
What is wrong with them? They're went to the moon in 1968 and now they're so slow to take up any new techonolgy. Mobile phones are another good example!
ZX Its not as simple as that. WS tvs in the US are inextricably linked to HDTV, while digital tv in the UK etc. took the quicker/easier route of keeping the same amount of scanlines. Thus WS tvs in the US are technologically more advanced then UK ones, but this of course means they cost more, which lowers the take up rate, especially when you can get massive 4:3 rearprojection tv's over there for far less.
Originally posted by Ravioli
They went to the moon in 1968? WTF did we get to see in 69 then? :p Well if you believe some people the footage ould have spent as least a year in post production;).
http://www.dvd.reviewer.co.uk/news/news.asp?Index=6343&Section=3
Answers:
I wonder how long it will be before major releases appear on DVD only.
Answers:
I would expect several years yet. After all, you can even still buy music on tape despite the fact that almost everyone buys CDs these days.
Answers:
Out of interest, does anyone know how quickly the DVD/VHS sales ratio changed compared to the CD/Vinyl sales ratio?
Answers:
AFAIK
CD first outsold old formats (vinyl+tape) in 1991
For argument's sake we'll call that 8 years after introduction (could say 10 but 8 realistically)
Faster than tape outselling vinyl - 1983. Toss up when tape was really introduced.
No idea on how the DVD/VHS ratio is going.
Answers:
Wonder what the ratio for Pan & Scam vs Widescreen were though:confused:
Answers:
Originally posted by Ono
Wonder what the ratio for Pan & Scam vs Widescreen were though:confused:
It would be interesting to know how many people actively chose one version over the other, and how many just saw the box and picked it up.
Answers:
Originally posted by Ono
Wonder what the ratio for Pan & Scam vs Widescreen were though:confused: These are UK sales so it wouldn't be an issue with LOTR.
Answers:
R1 split is around 60/40 in favour of widescreen according to a thread on hometheaterforum
Answers:
Originally posted by Ono
Wonder what the ratio for Pan & Scam vs Widescreen were though:confused:
Widescreen: 100%
P&S: 0%
Unlike Harry Potter, LOTR was released WS-only on DVD in the UK :D
Given that the WS version of Harry Potter thrashed the P&S verion in terms of sales, I doubt that studios will be bothering with dual-format releases in the UK again - unlike in the US, where they seem to be gaining a foothold :oh-hum:
-- J.
Answers:
Originally posted by John Nelson
Widescreen: 100%
P&S: 0%
Unlike Harry Potter, LOTR was released WS-only on DVD in the UK :D
Given that the WS version of Harry Potter thrashed the P&S verion in terms of sales, I doubt that studios will be bothering with dual-format releases in the UK again - unlike in the US, where they seem to be gaining a foothold :oh-hum:
-- J.
Is that because take up of WS in the usa is slow? That would explain by lots of US TV is 4:3. eg new series like six feet under
ZX
Answers:
That is exactly the reason ... WS TV's are ery expensive over there as they are High definition sets...
Therefore the market is predominantly 4:3 sets and the average punter wants his screen filled (go figure)...
Answers:
Originally posted by Fawlty
That is exactly the reason ... WS TV's are ery expensive over there as they are High definition sets...
Therefore the market is predominantly 4:3 sets and the average punter wants his screen filled (go figure)...
What is wrong with them? They're went to the moon in 1968 and now they're so slow to take up any new techonolgy. Mobile phones are another good example!
ZX
Answers:
Originally posted by ZX81
What is wrong with them? They're went to the moon in 1968 and now they're so slow to take up any new techonolgy. Mobile phones are another good example!
ZX
They went to the moon in 1968? WTF did we get to see in 69 then? :p
Answers:
I know about 5 people who cancelled the VHS version because they wanted to wait for new release with the extra footage on.
Dave
Answers:
can't people just change a setting on there dvd players to make the picture fill the screen even if the disc is widescreen? If not then this would be the best solution because all those :nuts: people can watch Pan & Scan
Answers:
Originally posted by ZX81
What is wrong with them? They're went to the moon in 1968 and now they're so slow to take up any new techonolgy. Mobile phones are another good example!
ZX Its not as simple as that. WS tvs in the US are inextricably linked to HDTV, while digital tv in the UK etc. took the quicker/easier route of keeping the same amount of scanlines. Thus WS tvs in the US are technologically more advanced then UK ones, but this of course means they cost more, which lowers the take up rate, especially when you can get massive 4:3 rearprojection tv's over there for far less.
Answers:
Originally posted by Ravioli
They went to the moon in 1968? WTF did we get to see in 69 then? :p Well if you believe some people the footage ould have spent as least a year in post production;).
1 2