The Blu-ray optical disc format, once a bastion of hope for reviving the home entertainment industry, is struggling to survive under the assault of video-on-demand and downloads.

In a new financial forecast, Sony has warned of heavy losses primarily due to its exit from the PC business and because "demand for physical media [is] contracting faster than anticipated."

Read more at: Bye-bye, Blu-ray: Video-on-demand and streaming options are gaining on you - Computerworld (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9248082/Bye_bye_Blu_ray_Video_on_demand_and_streaming_options_are_gaining_on_you_)

Andrew

This supports the notion that Blu-Ray is not a good choice for long term data archiving due to the likelihood that devices needed to read the disks may not be easily obtainable in a few years.

Hi

Blu-ray will be around for a while yet and no one should worry about not being able to play them. When was the last time anyone bought or was interested in Video CD, yet my new Blu-ray writer plays them just fine. Even on old gold Kodak photo disc (anyone heard of them let alone seen one?) works perfectly.

Only last month a report was saying that CD sales were keeping streaming music sales from growing, and another article was saying Blu-ray and DVD discs are still the preferred choice of consumers.

I guess it just depends on who is writing the articles and what bit of research they've picked up on.

Sony is very keen for physical media to disappear anyway, they've made all the money they can on inventing CD, CD-R and patents that went into DVD- and +RW/+R formats. The irony is when they were complaining of lost sales to piracy and people copying physical media, they were providing the equipment to do and still profiting from it!

The money for Sony Entertainment is in streaming, as it is a pay once watch once service, they have more control over the media and can enforce DRM.

They'll still produce the Blu-ray disc after they have strictly control the release of top grossing films and programs via cinemas and TV companies, then streaming with DRM.

DVD And Blu-ray Discs Remain Preferred Sources of Video Content (http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=39696)
CDs Keep Music Subscription Revenues Low (http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=39881)

I don't think we should panic just yet.

Regards

Phil

When bluray appeared, I took a decision to not offer it to clients unless they asked. To date, I have only been asked once if I supply on bluray and that was just a few weeks ago. When I said I could and could also supply in mp4 on sd card, usb stick or data dvd, they decided to go for the usb as they felt it was much more flexible than bluray. They could plug it into the tv, bluray player and laptop, plus transfer it to iPads and smartphones. I really can't see the demand for bluray increasing.

Roger

It depends what you're doing, doesn't it? And Blu-Ray offers a complementary option to such as delivering on USB etc - the strengths of one are the weaknesses of the other.

For immediate use, I don't dispute there's a lot going for file delivery on solid state - especially for just single video files (no menu structure etc).

But Blu-Ray (same as DVD) has it's own attractions, long term storage being an obvious one. Put it on a shelf and forget it. You can't do that with a hard drive, and probably not with solid state either, leaving aside the question of cost.

To Jim - the appeal of Blu-Ray is that it is backwards compatible with DVD and CD. Pricing is becoming such that there is little point in producing a drive that won't support Blu-Ray - even if you only want to read DVD/CD. It's going to be a very long time before there is going to be any problem finding a reader for Blu-ray. If not DVD/BluRay for long term storage at the moment, then what?

I don't doubt that streamed delivery of commercial content won't continue to grow in the years to come, but I see it co-existing with optical disc for quite a long time to come - not totally displacing it. Think how many BluRay/DVDs are given as presents - it's the act of giving something physical that helps to make the present.

My use of "long term" means greater than 25 years. I suppose there will transfer services as there are now for Super 8, 3.5 floppies, VCR tapes, etc. Also, it depends on your projected access to the data. Let's say you have a video memoir that you would like to be accessible to those who find it in 100 years and data migration is unlikely. At this point in time my best guess would be to use both LTO tape and an archival quality Blu-Ray, but I'd have misgivings about both, even if I paid for 100 years worth of salt mine storage. Maybe you place a reader in the storage container with the media.

When bluray appeared, I took a decision to not offer it to clients unless they asked. To date, I have only been asked once if I supply on bluray and that was just a few weeks ago. When I said I could and could also supply in mp4 on sd card, usb stick or data dvd, they decided to go for the usb as they felt it was much more flexible than bluray. They could plug it into the tv, bluray player and laptop, plus transfer it to iPads and smartphones. I really can't see the demand for bluray increasing.

That's been my recent experience too (with delivery of corporate video). Over the past 12 months, I can't recall delivering in DVD or blu-ray. It's all .mp4 delivery (in 1080p) these days in my neck of the woods. Internally, it's loaded onto the client's internal server, or on a USB stick to be played from the back of 1080p TVs or it can be with the USB inserted into the front of the blu-ray player. I'm finding that, externally, putting the .mp4 on Dropbox is an increasingly popular way for a company to share a video with its corporate partners. The essential thing is to make sure that the .mp4s play smoothly on all devices and my final encode is always run through HandBrake. With 1080p video, it gives excellent quality with smaller file sizes and plays well on everything (I've found that exporting the .mp4 directly from FCP X can lead to stuttering playback from a USB in the back of a TV set, but Handbrake exports always play as smooth as silk).

I purchased a newer blu-ray burner 6 months ago, but I now suspect that its main use will be for archiving (as already mentioned by others in this thread). I'm really surprised by that, because, 3 or 4 years ago, I really thought that we'd simply shift over from DVD to blu-ray delivery. But it's not the case at all.

Hi

Who know's what options there will be playing anything in 100 years time, it's a gamble whatever is chosen. I do know that several projects where I've delivered on DVD are still playable a long time later, but if it had been as a media file I doubt they would still have it, as I know in a couple of cases when I've been asked to help, that due to hard disk crashes where all their media has been lost, an MP4 would have gone the same way. They still have the DVD to play of course and in one case I had used a lot of still photos in the footage and copied all the original images to spare space on the DVD including ones not used. You've not seen anyone so grateful when they heard I had done that and just needed to browse to a folder on the DVD to retrieve them.

Companies like Dropbox can come and go taking the media files with them.

As always the answer with anything data related and archiving is not to put all your eggs in one basket.

Regards

Phil

I agree with David, it all depends upon what you are shooting and who you are delivering it to.

For corporate work, yes, solid state will always win in this environment. Computers are the norm and companies want files to deal with.

For consumer sales, Blu-ray has more of a life. Blu-ray is a movie format at its core. A better way to deliver a high quality viewing experience along with the option for data if you want to use it that way.

In my view Sony or "the consortium" missed the boat on pricing. They overestimated the demand for Blu-ray over DVD and priced it way too high out of the gate. People did not want to spend $200+ on a Blu-ray player and skipped it. Meanwhile streaming came on the television/movie scene and Blu-ray was too late to react with lower pricing. Now we have a permanent coexistence.

It is a real shame as Blu-ray really is the best viewing experience quality wise. Streaming will eventually get there but as a small business, streaming is not a great business model. At least for sales to larger groups of people.

My understanding is that they also over-priced the royalties for the replication plants. The economy of doing smaller runs was negatively affected.

Andrew

My reply to the OP was purely about his bluray question and the fact that I find mp4 HD files more flexible. However, the vast majority of my mainly wedding output is delivered on dvd as requested by clients, so I do agree that a hard copy storage is desirable, I just don't see any demand for bluray delivery and although some producers may see it as useful for archiving, I don't see the general public being particularly interested.

Roger

I just don't see any demand for bluray delivery and although some producers may see it as useful for archiving, I don't see the general public being particularly interested.

The question remains that if you don't go for Blu-Ray - what do you use for (long term) archiving?

In the big money world, then LTO tape seems the current de facto standard - but even that requires a certain amount of "active archiving" as drives are only guaranteed to be backwards compatible with the previous two generations.

If you don't have that sort of money, it's difficult to think of anything at all better than Blu-ray.

I also know of people in the wedding business who haven't waited to be asked for Blu-Ray, but have actively promoted it. (Normally as additional to a DVD copy.) The pitch has been along the lines of "even if you don't have a Blu-Ray player at the moment, you may want the Blu-Ray to be able to see the event in the best possible quality in the future". Since the shooting/editing/authoring is all in HD anyway, it just means doing two renders of the same basic project to get the two versions, so not much extra work.

They feel that apart from any actual extra direct sales, then it makes them look more "special" in the eyes of potential clients (who may not ask unprompted for Blu-Ray, because they don't know enough), helps to set them apart from competition - even with clients that don't actually want that service.

As 99.9% pf my clients want dvd delivery, I simply make an extra copy for archiving, so don't need dvd there. As for offering bluray to clients even if they don't ask for it or have a player to pay it on, I don't see the point. It is a dying format that I have not been asked to produce, so I am even less likely to be adked as it fades away. The argument about the best possible quality doesn't really hold up in that instance for bluray, as I can just as easily offer extra hd copies on usb, data dvd etc which enables much more playing flexibility and easy transfer to other devices.

Roger

As 99.9% pf my clients want dvd delivery, I simply make an extra copy for archiving, so don't need dvd there. As for offering bluray to clients even if they don't ask for it or have a player to pay it on, I don't see the point. It is a dying format ............
Blu-Ray is most definitely NOT a "dying format", most certainly not as far as drives go. If you look at what is now on sale, you'll find that they outnumber DVD/CD only drives, both as standalone units and as drives within computers. It's getting close to the stage where manufacturers will only produce Blu-ray/DVD/CD combined drives - DVD only drives will go the way of CD only drives.

OK, it's quite likely that many of these will play far more DVDs than Blu-Rays in their lifetime, and it's also likely that Blu-Ray discs will continue on sale alongside (rather than supersede) DVD, but that's not the point. With a common player, expect to be able to play a Blu-Ray disc for a good many years into the future - same with DVD and CD.

And you say "just as easily offer extra hd copies on usb, data dvd etc"? Surely for such as a wedding the capacity of a data DVD is a bit limited, and even for a USB it's more expensive than a blank Blu-Ray disc? What about replicating the DVD menu on the HD version? I'd expect the end result may get viewed initially, then put away untouched for a number of years only to be "rediscovered" in the future. To have any use, the recording needs both to be usable itself, and needs hardware to make use of it. Currently, a DVD/BluRay disc is likely to be viable in itself for far longer than any hard drive or solid state recording.

I don't dispute that such as solid state USB may be the most sensible form of delivery for HD for some uses, but if being used to deliver such as a wedding video, it should be given with a strong health warning that it has an inherently limited life - think years, but not decades. (As may be expected from magnetic tape or optical disc, given good storage conditions.)

I think the whole idea of needing to archive for decades is totally pointless unless it is of some historical value. Whether optical storage outlasts solid state, is to my mind purely of limited technical interest. I have archive copies of weddings going back to 1983, on Betamax, VHS, Umatic and DVD. That totals well over 2000 weddings and I have only once been asked if I could supply a copy after more than a few months. That was for a seven year old wedding, where the couple had the original stolen.

Many of the couples that I filmed are probably long since divorced, many others would have copied them themselves and there is no contractual obligation on me to store for years. With corporate work, none of the companies that I have dealt with over the years would dream of using years old footage for current promotions and many of them also stopped trading years ago.

So apart from broadcasters and historians, the requirement for long term archiving in my opinion is very limited.

Roger

Thar be the truth. That's really good solid thinking there. I wonder if it is even in the mindset of the client that their video guy would still have a copy of their wedding etc from years ago.

Andrew

I think the whole idea of needing to archive for decades is totally pointless unless it is of some historical value. Whether optical storage outlasts solid state, is to my mind purely of limited technical interest.
But surely for wedding videos, then it's exactly for it's personal historical value in years to come that many people decide to have one made in the first place, isn't it? Something to show the children and grandchildren and something to look back on - and maybe an only record of relatives who may no longer be around.

If you're happy to deliver such on solid state, I assume you do make it clear to your clients that without active archiving, what you are giving them is unlikely to last a decade - even assuming availability of hardware and software? Make it clear that the files need to be copied before too many years have passed - or face losing them?
I have archive copies of weddings going back to 1983, on Betamax, VHS, Umatic and DVD. That totals well over 2000 weddings and I have only once been asked if I could supply a copy after more than a few months. That was for a seven year old wedding, where the couple had the original stolen.
That's not the point. Previous clients may have lost your details, moved away, or not considered any possibility that a replacement may be available, so never even bothered to ask. For video with future value, it's the copy supplied to the client that needs to be as future proof as realistically and viably possible, if you are acting in their best interests. And currently (and assuming no active archive policy) that has to be a DVD for SD, BluRay for HD. The discs will last longer than the data on solid state, and surely the blank media is cheaper anyway?

Nothing can be guaranteed 100% future-proof indefinitely - even tablets of stone - but that's no excuse for not doing the best possible at the time.

And the more wedding videos get a reputation for not lasting, the stronger will be the argument for couples just spending that budget on a set of high quality stills. (I recently came across my parents wedding photos at the back of a cupboard - and that was from 1948.)

I think David makes some good points, particularly in light of the ease and interest in developing family histories and researching family ancestry. The 'net has made that SO much easier. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if wedding videographers found at least some business if they would only advertise the fact that they had old footage available. Even in the case of divorce or step-families, there may be "children" or siblings who might find it worthwhile to have footage from earlier years. If nothing else, it might provide some work (and income) in the slow months.

As for myself, I primarily do equestrian competitions, not weddings. For those, I provide a "normal" and an "enlarged" view of each clip (scaled-up by 40-50%) at both normal speed and slo-mo. Each of those becomes a chapter on a DVD. (While I don't really like down-rezing from HD to SD for DVD,no one has asked for BD yet). While I'm considering distribution on USB Flash drive, I don't know of a way to "chapterize" footage on them. (Remember, these are horse people; they spend their day riding, or in the barn, or traveling to/from shows...not in front of a computer, so I want it to be real easy for them to see their footage).

Bottom line for me is that I'll continue to use DVD (and/or BD when it's asked for), and make flash drives available for those who want them. While DVDs take more work due to menu creation, printing, and packaging, I'm hoping discs don't disappear too soon.

I think the whole idea of needing to archive for decades is totally pointless unless it is of some historical value.

I agree. My use case is specifically historical family archive footage. In essence, someone's great great grandparent telling the story of his/her life. So, mainly of use for family archivists/historians.

"While I'm considering distribution on USB Flash drive, I don't know of a way to "chapterize" footage on them" by Denis Danatzko

Hi Denis.

There is a company that makes a CD menu program that also works on USB sticks.

You would have to have your chapter points as separate movies, but they will all play straight through from the 1st one if required. The program is basic but good, and has a trial.

(Don't know how to put the link in) here goes!


Read more about SamLogic USB Menu Creator

USB Menu Creator - Creates an AutoRun Menu Interface for a USB Flash Drive / USB stick (http://www.multimailer-statistics.com/statistics-clicks/tracker/click.aspx?mu=user-s-2004aba7d4cc2ad6f&n=1995&lnk=1&d=20140425&rc=mmxd@zlpgznxtsdnwpacppriy&url=www.samlogic.net%2fusb-menu-creator%2fusb-menu-creator.htm)

My experience with Bluray is that they are far more durable than DVD when it comes to kids and the inevitable scratches

There is a company that makes a CD menu program that also works on USB sticks.

You would have to have your chapter points as separate movies, but they will all play straight through from the 1st one if required. The program is basic but good, and has a trial.
Yes, and it may be sensible in some cases, but the disadvantage over DVD and BluRay is that it's far more proprietary, less of a general standard. With a DVD or BluRay, you know exactly where you are, exactly what's needed for guaranteed playback.

If you must deliver something with menus, chapters etc on solid state, then what's wrong with making an .iso file that corresponds to a DVD or Blu-Ray? Hence is compatible with programmes like WinDVD, VLC etc for direct computer use - or can be simply and directly burnt to a disc if you want a "real" DVD or Blu-Ray?

But I still don't really see the point. For such usage, a solid state USB drive is dearer than a blank Blu-Ray disc, and is likely to be inferior in archive terms. So why not just burn the disc and hand that over?

David, I think you are missing my point here. I do agree that dvd/bluray is better than solid state for archiving, and I keep a copy of every wedding I deliver on the same format that they request it on. That is almost exclusively dvd and I can always copy it if required in the future.

What I don't agree with is the need to archive raw footage for future re-editing, which is what a number of members seem concerned about. It is also not up to the videographer to archive the client's finished work for years in my opinion, rather that the client should protect their own valuable family history for future generations. There is absolutely no reason why a client couldn't get their wedding footage copied to a future format as their existing one becomes obsolete. It is not our responsibility to future proof it for them, indeed they can bring it back to me in a few years time if they wish for transfer, just as I used to do with old VHS tapes and cine film.

If producers are concerned about archiving footage, perhaps they should consider charging clients a yearly rate for storing their footage on a contractual basis, rather than filling up archiving tapes, discs, hard drives or whatever at great cost to the producer. I am happy to film and edit a client's family history, but I'm certainly not bothered if they lose it through lack of care, obsolescence, or because they aren't prepared to pay for the luxury of archiving. My experience is that they will never want a re-edit and if you keep an original copy, that is all you will need if it worries you.

I will be moving home soon and weddings or commercial work that I have kept copies of for more than 10 years, will be destroyed and taken to the tip. The extra space will come in useful :-)

As a final thought, when I buy a new car, the supplier will not give me another copy of it if I don't look after it, have it serviced properly or it becomes obsolete. If it is properly looked after it will last for years, but it is up to me to cover the cost of that and I really don't see much difference with a video product that I supply.

Roger

In my opinion, Blu-Ray never was a good option, never caught on with the public, and is indeed dying at a rapid rate. I have offered free HD videos of important family events on Blu-Ray to friends and others, and rarely does anybody want one. Blu-Ray is further limited by bit-rate restrictions, and although it may be the best "commercial" quality out there right now, most people are happy with up-scaled DVDs. For those who are videophiles, Blu-ray isn't good enough. Also, in 4-5 years it is likely that 4K TVs will be as common as HD sets now, and most content will be available in 4K. I understand that there is an effort to put 4K on a Blu-ray disc, but streaming and USB stick delivery will likely be the delivery methods of choice by then. Blu-Ray is headed for the archives, to join its old frenemy HD-DVD.

And that may well hit the proverbial nail on the head - the BR vs. HD-DVD mess probably soured many consumers that might have been convinced by a single format, properly promoted and reasonably priced (it took WAY too long for BR players/drives/burners to bust the $100 mark!!). ONLY NOW is BR getting more promotion, and it's probably too little too late. A case of winning the battle only to lose the war!

With 4K already screaming around the corner, there will need to be a suitable physical storage media, for those who don't trust "virtual" streaming/storage, or who want something tangible they can hold. ALL that is really needed is something physical, and a menu system for convenient playback, that can interface to whatever display is handy. Perhaps a rather large plastic disk is not the "best" option at this stage of the digital "game"? Leaving the question if "if not that, then WHAT?"

What I don't agree with is the need to archive raw footage for future re-editing, which is what a number of members seem concerned about.
It depends on the work, but in the main I fully agree, and think that in the case of this thread, it's the finished version - not rushes - that is being thought about?
It is also not up to the videographer to archive the client's finished work for years in my opinion, rather that the client should protect their own valuable family history for future generations.
And I agree, and I'm sorry if I gave any other impression. I did after all say near the beginning "For video with future value, it's the copy supplied to the client that needs to be as future proof as realistically and viably possible, if you are acting in their best interests."

When referring to the lack of previous clients approaching you for copies, I got the impression you were implying it meant a lack of interest in general as the years go by about such as wedding videos - I meant to give reasons why there could be another explanation.
There is absolutely no reason why a client couldn't get their wedding footage copied to a future format as their existing one becomes obsolete. It is not our responsibility to future proof it for them, indeed they can bring it back to me in a few years time if they wish for transfer, just as I used to do with old VHS tapes and cine film.
One problem is that some producers cite copyright and insist that only they have the right to make additional copies, and may even have used copy prevention systems in the past. I'm aware of one instance in particular where the only copy a client had was on VHS, they had not been able to get in touch with the original firm who made the video, weren't able to make their own copy (due to Macrovision), and commercial copying services refused to deal with it because of the copyright issue.

Personally, I think that when it's a one-one contract - such as a wedding video - copyright should be bought out by the client. Have a business model where the profit is primarily in the one-off fee - not on a per copy basis. When it's an event (with multiple copies sold to multiple parties) it's obviously a different scenario.

Secondly, you're assuming that their existing copy is not just becoming obsolete, but is able to be played and copied at all given the appropriate hardware. With common tape based formats, that's generally been true in the past, as long as it's been stored in reasonable conditions. With optical disc formats it may also be true - but go to material on solid state or hard drives stored for a while and they may be in for a nasty surprise. Hard drives don't like to be left unused for long at all, (they may refuse to spin) and effects like quantum tunnelling can mean a very finite lifetime for data on USBs or solid state cards.

So if the clients bring such back to you in a few years time, you may not be able to do any transfer anyway, that's the point. Neither will anybody else. No, it may not be your responsibility to guarantee total future proofing for them, (which may not be possible anyway) but I assume at the very least that if you supply content on such as USB, you make any clients aware that without active archiving within (say) 5 years, there is an increasing chance of the device becoming unplayable?

As a final thought, when I buy a new car, the supplier will not give me another copy of it if I don't look after it, have it serviced properly or it becomes obsolete. If it is properly looked after it will last for years, but it is up to me to cover the cost of that and I really don't see much difference with a video product that I supply.
When I buy a new car, I don't expect it to last forever, but I do expect the manufacturer will have given some thought to lifespan. I expect them (for example) to take some care about anti-corrosion proofing, and would expect spare part availability to be reasonably guaranteed for a fair period after it ceases to be manufactured.

If I was the client, same here. If I'd paid money for the product, I'd expect the supplier to give some thought to lifespan.

Right from the start I've agreed that such as file delivery on USB has a place for "here & now" jobs, and for such I personally have found such as dropbox even more useful. But for finished products with future value (and weddings must be the most obvious) I can't think of anything (currently) better than BluRay for HD, DVD for SD.

That's not just in the clients interests (re longevity), but in the suppliers as well (optical discs are cheapest/GB blank media by far).

I think from reading your detailed response David, that we are basically in agreement on most aspects. I am not convinced of the longevity of Solid state storage, which is why I never supply a usb copy only, on the rare occasion that I do get asked. I'm also pretty sure that in a comparatively short period of time, there will be new hard formats available to store the higher quality footage that is being produced.

Roger

I'm also pretty sure that in a comparatively short period of time, there will be new hard formats available to store the higher quality footage that is being produced.
It's difficult to think what it will be, and I'm not aware of anything totally new even on the horizon.

There are really three basic candidates for data storage at the moment - magnetic (tape or hard drive), solid state, and optical.

Hard drives are not liked for long term storage because of moving parts - put one in a drawer for a year or two and it may refuse to spin.

Panasonic famously declared "tape is dead!" well over ten years ago, which turned out to be highly optimistic with hindsight. Well, now it may not be much used in cameras, but it's far from dead in the professional data storage world (including video) in the form of such as LTO tape. (And that's not likely to change soon - http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/digital-video-industry-news/523057-sony-announce-new-tape-technology.html )

Solid state has more or less swept the board recently for in camera storage as the price has come down and performance has gone up. But cost/GB is still relatively high, and longevity questionable, which all goes against it from an archive point of view.

Which leaves optical disc. Panasonic and Sony have recently announced a new professional solution based on BluRay, which may be a viable alternative to LTO for professional use.

But for the consumer? I just can't see anything even on the horizon offering the cost/longevity as BluRay/DVD does.

I remember hearing rumours a few years ago of "WORM" solid state - write once/read many - where the writing action permanently burnt microscopic links within the chips, rather than transferring packets of charge into wells to form the data. It was seen as maybe the ultimate in long term storage, but never seems to have got any further.

My problem with optical archive solutions is that the pricing tends to be ridiculous. Seems like most here film weddings for their business so I can understand that you guys don't need large archive solutions. But in my case I film content for my websites which I really need to archive. So far I've been sticking to portable hdd's and dvd/bluray for my archiving needs because other methods are priced for billionaire corporations. So I keep two archives at two different bank vaults in both optical and magnetic formats. It would be great if a true archival format came out and was affordable, but I just doubt that will be the case. So I stick to my current method which I update as new cheap tech comes along. I'll leave the optical discs as they are but eventually replace the magnetic backups with larger portable hdd's as they become available. I figure this way I don't have to worry about my hdd archives going bad over time as every few years I basically dump them all to new fresh hdd's. I had started with 500 3.5" hdd's many years ago, then shifted it all to 1tb portable hdd's, and currently I'm on 2tb hdd's. Someday I'll shift all the magnetic backups to 4tb portable hdd's. It's worked well for me so far, and I keep two sets of everything at two banks in two different towns for extra redundancy.

I'll keep an eye on future archiving mediums but as I said I'm not expecting them to have affordable pricing.

I'll leave the optical discs as they are but eventually replace the magnetic backups with larger portable hdd's as they become available. I figure this way I don't have to worry about my hdd archives going bad over time as every few years I basically dump them all to new fresh hdd's.

I'll keep an eye on future archiving mediums but as I said I'm not expecting them to have affordable pricing.
Yes, as you seem only too aware, the problem with hdd's is that you can't just store them for long without attention - they need to be periodically copied for reliability.

I suspect you may be exactly the sort of person the Sony/Panasonic announcement was aimed at. With that, the expectation is you really will be able to put it on the shelf and have some guarantee that the data will be readable in a claimed 50 years. Assuming a player still exists to make use of it....... :-)

May be more expensive than hdd's in the first instance, but if it saves the hassle and expense of copying everything every few years....?

bluray scares people because of the idiotic hdmi restrictions and controls (internet connection? really? so they can monitor what the $@#$@#$$ I watch?. As a storage is not big enough (and not reliable enough): much better if you use hard disks, that are easy to copy in one shot instead of a bag of disks to be changed one after the other. For distribution? come on... a flash drive is WAY easier
lapalisse...

Not everybody is willing to pay extra for a Blu-Ray option. If I did weddings I would give a DVD and offer to upload to their Vimeo or YouTube account for extra $. I only archive 60 days because I shoot at least 1GB daily and after 8 years of work it would cost too much to maintain. I also do not want the responsibility of being the one to archive everything for everybody because sh*t happens, you move, things get lost or damaged.

bluray scares people because of the idiotic hdmi restrictions and controls (internet connection? really?
It may have an OPTION for those restrictions for prerecorded discs, and a player may restrict copying etc, or output to anything to other than a simple display, but that doesn't need to be enabled. (And for something like a wedding video I wouldn't expect it to be.)
As a storage is not big enough (and not reliable enough): much better if you use hard disks, that are easy to copy in one shot .........
Hard disks are hopeless for long term storage, certainly for putting on a shelf and then trying to access a few months later, that's the whole point. It's better if they can be spun up about once a month, but even then the lifespan of the data is likely to be far lower than on an optical disc.

If you're talking about permanently powered RAID arrays it's a different matter (drives will still fail, but the data should survive with care) but that's hardly very convenient for home storage of wedding/holiday etc videos.....

Flash drives have some advantages for such as delivery, but they don't solve the long term storage problem. Data on such is not likely to be as permanent as on optical discs, and they're much more expensive/GB.
I only archive 60 days because I shoot at least 1GB daily and after 8 years of work it would cost too much to maintain. I also do not want the responsibility of being the one to archive everything for everybody because sh*t happens, you move, things get lost or damaged.
I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that, not unless your contract with a client specifies you have a requirement to guarantee storage.

But what we're saying is that therefore it's in the clients best interests that whatever you supply to them should be as future proof as possible - precisely because you are not archiving it yourself, and they can't come back to you. If they are prepared to make LTO backups, or their own RAID system, fine, but that's hardly sensible or practical for a couple who simply want a wedding video done! And for such I maintain that optical disc (DVD for SD, BluRay for HD) is the best and most viable option currently possible, at least in the long term.

No, not everybody may be willing to pay extra for the HD version, but the experience of my friend is that (when properly promoted) enough people *are* to make it worthwhile - very worthwhile. You don't sit back and say "hardly anybody has asked me for Blu-Ray", you promote it additionally to the DVD copy, and yes, you offer to put it online as well. In his case, he's got sample versions of weddings in HD and SD for comparison, and showing those to clients with the words "and even if you can't play HD at the moment, wouldn't you like this quality in the future......" apparently does wonders...... :-)

It may have an OPTION for those restrictions for prerecorded discs, and a player may restrict copying etc, or output to anything to other than a simple display, but that doesn't need to be enabled. (And for something like a wedding video I wouldn't expect it to be.)

I wasn't referring to the "option". I was talking about the general idea of the average bestbuy buyer put in front of a list of mandatory complicated equipment with impossible to remember codes and chips (not the ones you eat) or the blu-ray movie will not work at all. And THAT scares people away. So the idea was idiotic right from the very start.

I think the whole idea of needing to archive for decades is totally pointless unless it is of some historical value. Whether optical storage outlasts solid state, is to my mind purely of limited technical interest. I have archive copies of weddings going back to 1983, on Betamax, VHS, Umatic and DVD. That totals well over 2000 weddings and I have only once been asked if I could supply a copy after more than a few months. That was for a seven year old wedding, where the couple had the original stolen.

Many of the couples that I filmed are probably long since divorced, many others would have copied them themselves and there is no contractual obligation on me to store for years. With corporate work, none of the companies that I have dealt with over the years would dream of using years old footage for current promotions and many of them also stopped trading years ago.

So apart from broadcasters and historians, the requirement for long term archiving in my opinion is very limited.

Roger
That sort of short-term approach may be OK when you're just a hired hand making cheesy corporate promos. I shoot things specifically to keep a record of them, and I suspect many other people do, too

I watch my old productions from time to time, and I still sell a few copies from the back-catalogue. I even use my archive for new projects now and then. I recently produced a short film using footage from the 1960s and 70s shot on Super-8 cine, from the 1990s shot on S-VHS and from the 2000s shot on mini-DV. I should have had something from the 1980s, but that was on 8mm video and the tape was unplayable. I had versions of the cine that had already been transferred to VHS (unusable) and later to mini-DV (OK), but some new reels had come to light, so I rigged up my dad's old projector and copied them to mini-DV too.

My dad still has some 16mm cine film shot by his father in the 1940s. Priceless now.

And there I was the other night watching a 1921 home 16mm home movie. It would be a shame if we lost all these historical events. Important or not.

The real problem is the xbox one. It has a bluray player that does not play bd-r.

Whatever delivery media you use, for the sake of the videography industry, please discourage in a most rigorous manner the practice of delivering SD.
Do not fool yourself into believing that your clients want DVD.
They are relying on you to provide them with 2014 quality video. At least as good as the stuff they watch when not viewing your efforts.
Never mind all the ya-buts.
Most everything they watch on screens is fantastic quality. You want your video to hold its own and not have to say "well it's what they asked for" .

Right now I still do deliver dvd's but the HD digital files on a usb stick as well, those are much more versatile as they can play them on a tv with the usb stick or on their laptop, their ipad, their iphone. I have not received a single request for blu ray the past months and non of my booking for next year have that request either. It does surprise me none of my clients have a blu-ray players yet they have come down in price considerably, they all do have a lcd tv so they would benefit from one. I don't push selling a BR disc though but sell the HD files with every package.

Many people would benefit from a BD player. If nothing else, it will likely include a USB port with modern codecs that can play back the HD video files you deliver on a memory device. That's probably more convenient than hooking up a PC via HDMI to watch the video on a TV.

New TVs have USB ports and codecs also, but a TV upgrade is a bigger commitment - and they don't offer BD playback.

I would upload all video to a clients YouTube or Vimeo, but they want the flexibility of a DVD of not needing to be online to view it.

In addition, I would prefer to put daily video on a USB drive, but branded 2GB units cost $5 each while a DVD still costs 20 cents. I can't use non-branded cheap chinese USB drives because they always fail. I can't absorb an expense that goes from less than $10 to over $100.

Whatever delivery media you use, for the sake of the videography industry, please discourage in a most rigorous manner the practice of delivering SD.
Do not fool yourself into believing that your clients want DVD.
They are relying on you to provide them with 2014 quality video. At least as good as the stuff they watch when not viewing your efforts.
Never mind all the ya-buts.

Sorry but here is MY "ya-but"...

I just finished a project for a healthcare client that will be PRIMARILY viewed in HD on their website BUT they also have locations that can't stream video due to IT blocking streaming media so they requested 200 DVD-Video copies also because of the navigability. We delivered two videos in 6 languages so the ability to navigate IN THE APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE to the right content was key.

Every healthcare office in their system has a TV and DVD/VHS combo player sitting on a cart, not a BluRay.

Please don't presume that just because YOUR business model doesn't support DVDs in this day and age that there is ZERO need..

And yes, the SD material ISN'T as pretty but the message is FAR more important than "pretty".

very cool project shaun
thanks for the info
and please don't take anything I say personally, as I'm not intending disrespect for anyone's work nor am I professing to know anything
btw speaking of professing, back in the late 60's my radio instructor, Essa W. Joung worked in Winnipeg on "Jake and The Kid" a great CBC radio play based on stories by W. O Mitchell but those days were black and white and a whole nother story

Sorry but here is MY "ya-but"...
Every healthcare office in their system has a TV and DVD/VHS combo player sitting on a cart.

You can count the days when you will not see these anymore... go into any BestBuy and see what the cheapest "tv" they sell and the cheapest "dvd' player.

A 32" flat screen is now about $200. A 40" flat screen is under $300.

They DON'T sell DVD players anymore, they are ALL Blu-Ray players - backward compatible to play DVDs... they start at $49.. $200 for a top line Bliu-Ray player. Yes.. $49 for a Blu-Ray player. Wal-Mart was blowing out DVD players for $25... last Christmas. $25!

I also noticed that Sony DOESN'T MAKE A FLATSCREEN TV under 50" any more.. I bought a 40" Bravia last year... they don't make them that small anymore.. discontinued. The average 40" "lower quality" flat screen TV was well under $300.

How much lower do they have to go until EVERYONE has a 40" flatscreen and Blu-Ray player? I would say less than a year.

DVD format is not dead, as mentioned the navigation is still a useable format.. but the DVDs will be played on.. Blu-Ray players.

I also did notice quite a few UHD and 4K screen under $1000. Some large ones went up to $7000. It was just a few years ago when a 55" 1080p flatscreen was $2000... now they are $500.

We can only hope Derek, but one year is way too optimistic imho.

You will know that day has arrived when one can roll up at a live event they are filming and ONLY offer Blu-ray (without sacrificing sales). How long do you think it will take for that scenario to happen? If ever...

Streaming will replace Blu-Ray. Or a thumb drive hoked to USB3.

You will not see people going out to buy new DVD players (because they don't make them anymore) or even a Blu-Ray player. Can't buy a VHS player either.

Consumer are caught in the middle of a huge tech change, which will make streaming the fastest and easiest choice for consumers.

For filmmaker and content creators... many new cloud based companies are starting to offer streaming servers. They will compete with Vimeo and YouTube. Creators will just upload their final products to servers... and customers will be glad to just get a url link to what they just purchased.

Take a look at FileFactory.com. They are similar to DropBox. They are now offering UNLIMITED hard drive space for $199 for 5 years. *unlimited storage but a monthly bandwidth limit. The bandwidth is the gotcha, but as each month goes by, they keep giving more bandwidth for lower prices. And they cloud ISPs are now offering video streaming as part of there services.

So you want to shoot in 4K and deliver to a client? Send them a URL.

Streaming will replace Blu-Ray. Or a thumb drive hoked to USB3

Streaming works in some cases, but not on an airplane or other non-connected situation. We will always need local storage (maybe downloaded, rather than removable).

We don't stream from our cameras do we? We use local, removable media. :)

This debate is highly dependent upon what type of work you do. Single client, corporate work is obvious. Multi client for distribution is where it is so messy. Streaming and downloads are fine for large, well known companies like Apple and Amazon. For the rest of us, physical media is a much better option right now. A least for me. It is tough to reliably expect many people to go to a certain website (that they do not know) and make a purchase or download something they purchased a ticket for etc... It may sound simple and easy, but I would not want to trust sales on it.

Streaming works in some cases, but not on an airplane or other non-connected situation. We will always need local storage (maybe downloaded, rather than removable).

We don't stream from our cameras do we? We use local, removable media. :)

Cloud services are working on streaming video as a number one feature, it's not going away... why would ANY "client" actually need to have video files locally when they can stream to watch it to a computer, tablet or cellphone. Video delivery is going to be streamed. Physical devices will go the way of Blockbuster video.

You may prefer local media, and keep buying hard drives.. while the rest of us will be uploading to a more cost effective "cloud".

Cloud costs a now coming down to lower than physical media. Watch DropBox, Hightail and FileFactory. Three billion dollar cloud companies poised to get into video streaming services.

[QUOTE=
We don't stream from our cameras do we? We use local, removable media. :)[/QUOTE]

Yes I have several events that are live steamed from the camera to ustream and nary a local media insight
Weiyun offers 10tb streamable storage "free" and it works, but it's somewhat difficult to setup and use because of the language issue

I'm going to coin a phase here: Internetosphere - A data stream band encircling the globe to and from which all our stuff can be put or retrieved on any conceivable device for real time viewing and we'll probably do it sort of like WiFi, IE effortlessly and most likely at near or $0 cost