More DVD News -- Over the Edge Productions

[The Letter M]

I'm just excited to have the first DT dvd since Live In Tokyo, not to have a close up of Portnoy for EVERY OTHER SHOT.  It's rather obviouss who the director was on the other ones.

Agreed.  I still can't believe how awful the editing was for LSFNY.  Myung is barely shown throughout almost all of Through Her Eyes, which is a travesty considering how awesome his fretless bass work in that tune is.

Or rather, A Fatal Tragedy...


You saw that coming right?

More so than Victoria saw a gun-wielding Edward...

-Marc.

[Cedar redaC]

This guy

[BlobVanDam]

I'm just excited to have the first DT dvd since Live In Tokyo, not to have a close up of Portnoy for EVERY OTHER SHOT.  It's rather obviouss who the director was on the other ones.

Agreed.  I still can't believe how awful the editing was for LSFNY.  Myung is barely shown throughout almost all of Through Her Eyes, which is a travesty considering how awesome his fretless bass work in that tune is.

The complete lack of JM on THE is really apparent. I think that the camera-men on the night must have dropped the ball and didn't cover him very well, because I can't believe they would have left him out if they had the footage.
Reminds me of OIALT where I recall MP said on the commentary that he had to pull the Metropolis bass solo footage from another show, because there was no footage of him playing it from that particular night.

[Perpetual Change]

ehm
...it's 2013 with plasmas and LEDs everywhere and we're still talking DVD? or am i missing something?

Only people still stuck in the past. There was a VHS for them when Budokan came out, right? 

I for one will be purchasing the bluray!

[Dream Team]

ehm
...it's 2013 with plasmas and LEDs everywhere and we're still talking DVD? or am i missing something?

Maybe not everyone has limitless disposable income like you do? Or maybe some of us have mortgages, families, etc?

[robwebster]

ehm
...it's 2013 with plasmas and LEDs everywhere and we're still talking DVD? or am i missing something?

I'm poor, and I've spent umpteen hundred quid over however many years on my still relatively meagre DVD collection. Yes, you're missing something!

High definition is kind of overrated. Nice when you can afford it, and we've got HD television screens in my house, as well as an HD set top box since it was free to upgrade, but if it's clarity or money? I'd rather have the money. So would millions of others, judging by the ratio of blu-ray to HD in the shops I've seen around here, certainly - and having googled it, this isn't localised to my high street:

https://www.foxnews.com/tech/2011/04/19/feeling-blue-blu-ray/

I've got a bunch of high definition channels. I've also got a bunch of standard def ones. While I do enjoy the HD ones, I can't say I feel like I'm missing anything when I switch to SD. Certainly not enough to either a. spend £70 on every room with a screen on, or b. have my favourite shows on discs that only work on one telly.

There's nothing in it for most consumers. The difference between a DVD and a VHS was like the difference between a CD and a cassette. Both clear upgrades, that offered extra function as well as extra quality. The difference between a blu-ray and a DVD is a little more striking than the difference between, let's say, an MP3 download and a CD, but in both cases, the market has favoured the more convenient product. Because nobody was saying, in 2003, "God, I wish this DVD was a bit clearer." Would it be nice to see more pores on Karen Gillan's face, or see Dream Theater's live show with more vivid colours? Absolutely. "Yes," to both. But what I really want to pay for, the most important quality of the product, is the stories, or the music, and the ability to watch them wherever I want. And that's more important than visual quality, or seeing the dandruff on John Myung's shoulders, or completing my Karen Gillan freckle-map.

Great that you've got the disposable income. Envy it. If you've got it, spend it, and you clearly have, and all the power in the world to you. But you've missed loads. The world's huge! Blu-Ray sadly isn't practical, not in a world that's embraced the DVD player like it has. And it's not like the upgrade from VHS, where we see the new technology, coo, and go, "Oh, you can skip chapters, and add bonus features, and the tape doesn't unravel, and you don't have to spend ages fast forwarding, yes, that is clearly more useful." Because with the Blu-Ray, there's no new functionality. It's the exact same thing with a nicer picture. And to most people, that's not exciting. That's a chore. A hassle. I looked at my DVD collection, sighed, and went, "Really? Again?" Going by the evidence, I'm not alone.

Besides. It'll all be wireless before long. Smart TVs can't be too far away. When high-definition home media is easily accessible, when we can store it all on a central media center and play it anywhere in the house, I think people will be falling over themselves to buy HD media. Usefulness and quality. But as it is?

https://www.digital-digest.com/blog/DVDGuy/2012/05/09/blu-ray-the-state-of-play-may-2012/

As late as May last year, Blu-Ray only accounted for 25% of all video sales. The market share's increasing, but it's not setting the world on fire. And this isn't new technology. Blu-Ray was outselling HD DVD as early as January 2007. People just plain aren't embracing it.

...So it's safe to say I probably won't be getting Luna Park in HD. But who knows! A lot can change in three months.

[goo-goo]

BRs discs/movies are still expensive. Paying 25-30 bucks when I can pay 10-15 on release date for a DVD...it's 10 bucks!

[Perpetual Change]

Rob, depending on what you're watching... it CAN be like night and day. Especially on concert DVDs, where you really tend to notice more if sound especially is being compressed to save space. PT's Anesthetize BluRay is like night and day compared to the DVD version. Also, how can you stand watching SD channels on new TVs? They look so noticeably worse than HD ones to me, an even greater difference than VHS/DVD had.

That said, I don't see the need to rebuy all my movies in the new format when it comes out. But after comparing BluRay, which I got for Christmas, with my regular DVDs, it's safe to say that from here on out I'll be buying any new things as well as things I didn't have yet on BluRay. 

[Cedar redaC]

I think that it is easiest to see the difference between the two when you are looking at something with a lot of contrasting colors really close together, such as a football game (I am intending the American version of the game, but the rest of the world's football would be an adequate example as well.)

[robwebster]

Rob, depending on what you’re watching… it CAN be like night and day. Especially on concert DVDs, where you really tend to notice more if sound especially is being compressed to save space. PT’s Anesthetize BluRay is like night and day compared to the DVD version. Also, how can you stand watching SD channels on new TVs? They look so noticeably worse than HD ones to me, an even greater difference than VHS/DVD had.

That said, I don’t see the need to rebuy all my movies in the new format when it comes out. But after comparing BluRay, which I got for Christmas, with my regular DVDs, it’s safe to say that from here on out I’ll be buying any new things as well as things I didn’t have yet on BluRay.

Oh, it's great technology! I'm not saying it's rubbish, I think it's fantastic. High-definition footage has finally been made accessible for public consumption - how cool's that?! And yes, I'm sure I wouldn't have to replace my entire DVD collection, not least because they never filmed Jonathan Creek in high-definition in the first place. Finally, we can choose to watch our films, TV shows and bands in impeccable quality. I always record TV shows in HD when I have the option. I agree, it's lovely, and it empowers the consumer. Gives them more choice.

But that's exactly what it is - the option. It's not a leap forward, it's a leap sideways. A parallel. Blu-Ray is 5.1 to DVD's stereo. FLAC downloads versus MP3. If you able to store it, and play it, and afford it, brilliant. Absolutely, take that opportunity, it's gold dust. But for a lot of people, it's inconvenient technology, and a blu-ray disc's utility is severely limited in comparison to a DVD. A DVD will play on most things - the TV screen (HD TV screen, at that!) in my room's even got a DVD player built in. Couldn't find one with a Blu-Ray player.

Honestly, they nailed it with the name. DVD - Digital Versatile Disc. Blu-Rays aren't versatile enough. I'm sure this will change, gradually, over time, as high-definition technology becomes more accessible and affordable. Might be in the next home media cycle, might be in the present one, I don't know, I'm not an expert, I'm a consumer with an opinion. But for now, DVD isn't even close to being redundant technology. Even if I had a Blu-Ray player in the front room, I'd rather be able to take my new Dream Theater disc or my Doctor Who box set upstairs, or put it on my laptop, or watch it on my Xbox. Blu-Ray doesn't have any killer functionality, it's not the quantum leap from VHS to DVD. It's just a shinier DVD. It's an alternative to DVDs, not a replacement, not yet.

[ZirconBlue]

Even if I had a Blu-Ray player in the front room, I'd rather be able to take my new Dream Theater disc or my Doctor Who box set upstairs, or put it on my laptop, or watch it on my Xbox. Blu-Ray doesn't have any killer functionality, it's not the quantum leap from VHS to DVD. It's just a shinier DVD. It's an alternative to DVDs, not a replacement, not yet.

For the record most blu-rays (or at least most of the ones I buy) come with either a DVD or a digital copy (either on disc or for download).  In the US, anyway.

[robwebster]

Even if I had a Blu-Ray player in the front room, I'd rather be able to take my new Dream Theater disc or my Doctor Who box set upstairs, or put it on my laptop, or watch it on my Xbox. Blu-Ray doesn't have any killer functionality, it's not the quantum leap from VHS to DVD. It's just a shinier DVD. It's an alternative to DVDs, not a replacement, not yet.

For the record most blu-rays (or at least most of the ones I buy) come with either a DVD or a digital copy (either on disc or for download).  In the US, anyway.

Oh!! That's cool. I hope it's the same here. What, even box sets?!

Still - there we go, parallel technology! Blu-Ray's not really succeeding at replacing the DVD. By the evidence, it's probably not trying to.

[Perpetual Change]

Eh, I agree, it's not really a complete job forward. But it's more than a jump laterally. It is, at least, a good diagonal leap. 

I held off getting any Home Theater stuff until this year, when my parents got me a whole bluray 5.1 system for a great price.  I'm glad I did. BluRay players aren't even that expensive anymore anyway, though. And I can still play DVDs in it, anyway. Prior to, I only had my XBOX 360 to watch DVDs on; not a great DVD player at all.

Even if I had a Blu-Ray player in the front room, I'd rather be able to take my new Dream Theater disc or my Doctor Who box set upstairs, or put it on my laptop, or watch it on my Xbox. Blu-Ray doesn't have any killer functionality, it's not the quantum leap from VHS to DVD. It's just a shinier DVD. It's an alternative to DVDs, not a replacement, not yet.

For the record most blu-rays (or at least most of the ones I buy) come with either a DVD or a digital copy (either on disc or for download).  In the US, anyway.

Yeah, that's another thing I like about 'em.

[ZirconBlue]

Even if I had a Blu-Ray player in the front room, I'd rather be able to take my new Dream Theater disc or my Doctor Who box set upstairs, or put it on my laptop, or watch it on my Xbox. Blu-Ray doesn't have any killer functionality, it's not the quantum leap from VHS to DVD. It's just a shinier DVD. It's an alternative to DVDs, not a replacement, not yet.

For the record most blu-rays (or at least most of the ones I buy) come with either a DVD or a digital copy (either on disc or for download).  In the US, anyway.

Oh!! That's cool. I hope it's the same here. What, even box sets?!

Still - there we go, parallel technology! Blu-Ray's not really succeeding at replacing the DVD. By the evidence, it's probably not trying to.

Not sure about box sets, since I haven't bought any yet.  As an example, if you look for the Avengers on amazon, the basic version is available on DVD for $19.96.  For $5 more you get the Blu-ray plus the DVD.  (Then there's some other special editions with extra discs of features, etc.)

[Lynxo]

Even if I had a Blu-Ray player in the front room, I'd rather be able to take my new Dream Theater disc or my Doctor Who box set upstairs, or put it on my laptop, or watch it on my Xbox. Blu-Ray doesn't have any killer functionality, it's not the quantum leap from VHS to DVD. It's just a shinier DVD. It's an alternative to DVDs, not a replacement, not yet.

For the record most blu-rays (or at least most of the ones I buy) come with either a DVD or a digital copy (either on disc or for download).  In the US, anyway.

Oh!! That's cool. I hope it's the same here. What, even box sets?!

Still - there we go, parallel technology! Blu-Ray's not really succeeding at replacing the DVD. By the evidence, it's probably not trying to.

Eh, I wouldn't say that. I'd say the only reason they include both DVD and Blu-Ray in the same package is during this transition so that everybody can buy the movie and be able to watch it. I see no reason why Blu-Ray WOULDN'T replace DVD entirelly once the Blu-Ray players are more widespread. I'm not going so far as to make a comparision between CD/Vinyl, but I don't think it's far off. Why settle for less quality? Why buy DVD when you have the option to buy a Blu-Ray?
They're parallel for the time being. But not in the long run.

[robwebster]

Even if I had a Blu-Ray player in the front room, I'd rather be able to take my new Dream Theater disc or my Doctor Who box set upstairs, or put it on my laptop, or watch it on my Xbox. Blu-Ray doesn't have any killer functionality, it's not the quantum leap from VHS to DVD. It's just a shinier DVD. It's an alternative to DVDs, not a replacement, not yet.

For the record most blu-rays (or at least most of the ones I buy) come with either a DVD or a digital copy (either on disc or for download).  In the US, anyway.

Oh!! That's cool. I hope it's the same here. What, even box sets?!

Still - there we go, parallel technology! Blu-Ray's not really succeeding at replacing the DVD. By the evidence, it's probably not trying to.

Eh, I wouldn't say that. I'd say the only reason they include both DVD and Blu-Ray in the same package is during this transition so that everybody can buy the movie and be able to watch it. I see no reason why Blu-Ray WOULDN'T replace DVD entirelly once the Blu-Ray players are more widespread. I'm not going so far as to make a comparision between CD/Vinyl, but I don't think it's far off. Why settle for less quality? Why buy DVD when you have the option to buy a Blu-Ray?
They're parallel for the time being. But not in the long run.

Yes, I agree! That's exactly what I've said.

"It's an alternative to DVDs, not a replacement, not yet."
"I'm sure this will change, gradually, over time, as high-definition technology becomes more accessible and affordable. Might be in the next home media cycle, might be in the present one (...)"

I'm not trying to say standard definition DVDs are the last word in home media. Heck, they'll both be redundant eventually. I was disputing, originally, the contention that there's no point in Dream Theater releasing anything on a standard definition DVD today, in 2013. This is basically a present tense discussion. All things equal, yes, a better picture is better, hence the name - but all things aren't equal, and they won't be for a few years, yet. As it is, we've got the slightly unwieldy but better quality format, and the worse quality format that will play on anything with a round tray in it this side of a CD player. It's not quite FLAC vs. MP3, but it's along similar lines. First and second priorities are, "Is it a film?" and, "Can I play it at home?" "Does it have the best number of mega-pixels," isn't at the top of a lot of consumers' agendas, not right now. It could be the most beautiful picture in the universe, but if it doesn't work on my telly upstairs I'm not sure what I'm meant to do with it.

As an aside, I don't know that Blu-Ray will necessarily achieve market dominance before the next big thing comes along. It's been slowly creeping in that direction for the last however many years, but affortable Smart TVs can't be more than a few years away. It wouldn't think it'd be too long before we're downloading films and box sets as data. Music started it, and games consoles are already pushing that way. Interconnectivity's getting there, too. One media centre might wirelessly transmit to the entire house by the time Blu-Ray's at 50%. I don't know. I'm an idiot, guessing.

[Marion Crane]

I don't buy DVD's. That's what Redbox and Netflix are for. I will buy this on Blu Ray though

[philmcson]

Guys, please leave your first world problems behind, you'll either buy the DVD or the Blu ray and DT and RR will be happy. Some will even buy both, as collector's items. Which is also great. But I can't help myself, for me this part of the discussion is a bit ridiculous 

[Cedar redaC]

Some will only be happy with VHS or even more archaic, beta-max.

By some, I mean .0000000000001% of Dream Theater fans who were so blown away by Images and Words that they were stuck in a time loop where they repeat 1992 over and over again.

[philmcson]

Some will only be happy with VHS or even more archaic, beta-max.

By some, I mean .0000000000001% of Dream Theater fans who were so blown away by Images and Words that they were stuck in a time loop where they repeat 1992 over and over again.

Right 

But that kind can be found with any band (Motörhead - Ace of spades, Maiden - Number of the beast,..... ). They don't know what musical artists created in the last two or three decades 

[The Curious Orange]

...or completing my Karen Gillan freckle-map.

Can I have a copy of that when it's done??

[ZirconBlue]

Some will only be happy with VHS or even more archaic, beta-max.

By some, I mean .0000000000001% of Dream Theater fans who were so blown away by Images and Words that they were stuck in a time loop where they repeat 1992 over and over again.

1992 was such a great year. 

[MrBoom_shack-a-lack]

Some will only be happy with VHS or even more archaic, beta-max.

By some, I mean .0000000000001% of Dream Theater fans who were so blown away by Images and Words that they were stuck in a time loop where they repeat 1992 over and over again.

1992 was such a great year.

The year of Wayne's World and The Bodygard and let's not forget Basic Instinct...Sharon Stone and her muff! 

[hefdaddy42]

I still have Live in Tokyo on VHS.

[MrBoom_shack-a-lack]

I still have Live in Tokyo on VHS.

Me too, infact i only have the VHS version not the DVD version.

[wasteland]

You are missing the commentary, then.

Or you have the DVD as well?

[Perpetual Change]

I've only ever gotten through the whole thing with commentary on. 

[robwebster]

Some will only be happy with VHS or even more archaic, beta-max.

Again - while I'm sure you're correct, this doesn't really have anything to do with what anyone's been saying! That's a completely unfair comparison. DVD's continued relevance isn't the result of people clinging to their primitive mud-huts out of stubborn nostalgia. I'd think pretty much everyone's aware that high definition is, objectively, a better format than standard definition. It's just that people can't afford to adopt that better technology because, as it stands at present, you would need to buy a new disc-player for every room in the house if you want the same utility you already get from buying the DVD that runs on the players you already have.

The argument isn't, "Isn't the past great?" No, it's not, it's rubbish, HD's quantifiably better - the argument is rather closer to, "I've got no money, the economy is shit, maybe I'll make sure I've got enough money to buy a potato and wash my baby before I piss it away on John Petrucci's pleasant but entirely useless megapixels." If you've got the money, fantastic, but making a picture a bit clearer on one DVD in one room in the house isn't a great way to spend fifty quid if you're struggling for cash, and refitting your entire house to make a few more DVDs that much prettier with the same utility we previously enjoyed isn't a great way to spend a couple of hundred. It's a luxury, on top of a luxury, on top of a luxury. Just buying the standard DVD is lavish by my standards - I only bought one CD in the last year. Statistics suggest that I'm probably not alone, inasmuch as high definition is not yet worth the cost for me. Great, but impractical. It is, at this point, still just an option. The extra mile, for those who can afford it. Standard definition is very much standard. Hence the name.

So, yes. It's 2013 with plasmas and LEDs everywhere and we're still talking DVD. This isn't yesterday's technology, it's today's! They're running simultaneously. Bit of social and cultural awareness is all I'm asking! I am very excited that Luna Park is coming out on standard definition DVD, primarily because it means I stand a chance of being able to enjoy it. And it is a little galling when someone wades in (this isn't you, Cedar!) and goes, "DVD, they're still making those?! What's the point in that, I converted ages ago!" I know it's not malicious, and the betamax thing was a joke that was meant with the best of intentions, but the world's bigger than your own front room, is really what I'm saying. Owning a DVD player in 2013 isn't really comparable to insisting on betamax - not even as a joke, sadly.

Sorry if I sound like I'm trying to hector anyone. I'm not, and I think you're all cracking people, I just think this is a more important discussion than people are giving it credit for. It's a little frustrating to be dismissed, repeatedly, for not being able to upgrade my technology as soon as it becomes available - and then dismissed again when I've explained, with what I thought was a fairly generous level of patience, why a stunningly clear picture might not be at the top of a lot of households' priorities at this particular moment in time. It is possible that I haven't been clear. Or that, as I've failed miserably to be concise and precise, people have quite forgivably just gisted the argument and responded to that. Given that so many people have missed the point, it's looking very likely that I've just completely failed to convey it. So if I'm being uncharacteristically firm, this post, it's because I'm frustrated with me, not with you! Please don't take it personally.

[MoraWintersoul]

I'm with robwebster on this one. I know precisely... let's see... well, I know a lot of people and I'm pretty sure I could count the ones who have BluRay players on fingers of one hand. Some of us live in the first world which is really the third world but people are being nice to us by calling us "first world", if you know what I'm saying.

[Prog Snob]

I still have Live in Tokyo on VHS.

I think I have mine as well along with the Once in a Livetime VHS. 

[wasteland]

I'm with robwebster on this one. I know precisely... let's see... well, I know a lot of people and I'm pretty sure I could count the ones who have BluRay players on fingers of one hand. Some of us live in the first world which is really the third world but people are being nice to us by calling us "first world", if you know what I'm saying.

I've been able to buy a blu ray player after nearly two years of lobbying, and only because my father is a fanatic of high definition, and I promised him that I would be downloading his favourites movies in HD. Then I got Budokan and he got nothing 


But yes, I almost agree with rob, even though I think that the BR technology is a necessary diagonal step in preparation of a new breakthrough innovations, likely connected to the portability of the media playind devices.

[Perpetual Change]

@Rob, I don't' think the issue is people aren't understanding you. It's that you seem be suggesting that BluRay and HD is just some parallel technology in addition to DVD that's just for rich people, which is wrong, for several reasons. While I didn't buy my BluRay player—it was a gift— I just did a quick search, and I can't find a DVD player cheaper than $40 US, but I can find a BluRay player for $50.

The issues you're getting at is that we're at a crux in formats. You have old DVDs, designed to look good on massive tube systems. You have BluRays, designed to accommodate the era of new, flatscreen LED and HD TVs. And, looming overhead, you have the digital-only threat that people always talk about. It seems futile to invest in BluRay when it's just going to get replaced, right? Well, technology always works that way. And, though I don't mean to sound harsh, whether BluRay sticks around for 1 year, 5 years, or 10 years (depending when/if we really go all digital), you are still in the dust with your Luna Park DVD, and will need to either upgrade or purchase it again digitally if you want to enjoy it as it was designed and film to be enjoyed; assuming it has been filmed in high definition, and recorded with the highest possible audio sound quality.

A BluRay player is not a bad investment. Xbox is good for streaming things like Netflix, but my new Bluray player can do that too, while making use of my sound system. I can also just plug my HDMI cable from my laptop to my player, and watch that way. BluRay players seem designed to accommodate the changes in format we're going through technologically, under the assumption that BluRay will become the go-to physical format, as long as it remains. That's a fair assumption, at this point. Things are now recorded and filmed to accommodate that; not DVD.

[Perpetual Change]

Also, I find this whole "well, I'm poor" thing kinda funny. I'm on a pretty meager entry-level pay myself, and that's a recent upgrade for me. Just like with DVDs, I get BluRays when they're on sale, or else online. Look on Amazon.com for a recent movie on BluRay, and then DVD. The price isn't that different. In some cases, the BluRay is even cheaper. On Amazon, you can get the LotR trilogy complete with like 11 bonus discs brand new on BluRay for $55. If, for some reason, you decide you want that on DVD, it'll cost you even more.

[robwebster]

EDIT: No. Forget it. Time out.

[Another_Won]

EDIT: No. Forget it. Time out.

I actually read your whole post before you deleted it and I know where you're coming from.

Doesn't anybody remember going from cassette to CD?  I was late to the game then too.  In fact, the reason I got my bluray was because Budokan came out and I didn't have it already.  I figured it would be a good time to jump in.