Here we go again! It’s 2010 and little is being done for this planet on which we live! But before spelling out my thoughts, let me reassure the reader that I am neither connected nor do I own stock in any of the companies mentioned thereafter.
Remember the ‘green’ revolution that started before the crisis? It surely looks as if little, or indeed nothing has really been done in the DVD business. Well, that’s not quite true! A lot has been done by companies who invent new technologies and products, like EcoDisc Technology’s carbon lite DVD or the advent of FSC paper. But little has actually been done to implement those technologies on a grand scale.
We are still using Amaray-like and other plastic boxes for DVDs although there are many options for using less PVC-intensive materials. Take for example Jake-Box’s 100% recyclable packaging, or Pozzoli’s Ekoline. Yes, they cost a little more! But can cost be the only reason why the DVD industry is snubbing the environment? It may think it has got a lot to lose.
DVD sales are falling, and Blu-ray is not yet making up for this downfall. Instead of wondering how much the industry would be losing by embracing greener products, the question is rather how much it could gain by doing something good for our planet!
I do realise it is easier for hardware companies to implement new benchmarks, like Apple does with its just-launched iPad – Arsenic-free display glass, PVC free, recyclable Aluminum and frame and a 10-hour life battery. It is surely not a perfect list, but definitely innovative!
And the studio productions? Well, the only environmentally safe technologies seem to be VOD, cable, satellite reception, etc. But one should remember these are not the only way to distribute and watch a movie. And with the massive installed base of DVD players in this world it will be quite a long time before we move to an immaterial way of watching movies.
Don’t get me wrong. I am neither a fanatic, nor a preacher, but simply a citizen of this world – with children – who gets more and more annoyed by the slow speed of adaptation of innovative ways to save our planet. It should be the big players, the Warners, the Universals, the Foxs of the world to show they have a long-term vision by doing something sooner rather than later.
Rest assured your profits won’t slump by charging an extra €1 for an environmentally safer product! Should some wise manager make it happen, it could even be reflected in his/her end-of-year bonus….
There has been a lot of hype about 3D TV. But the industry getting behind a broad realm of technologies is a far cry from a monetisable mass market. Fundamentally, 3D is complex, more so than HD as technology and ecosystem. Screen Digest' TOM MORROD examines the issue.
This complexity will be reflected in uptake of 3D. It is often said that 3D is easier for consumers to 'see' than HD, thus driving true demand. But it can be countered that a market is not just about demand. It is about supply, price and information - all in questionable quantities.
Supply is a big piece of the puzzle and crucially, like HD, 3D is an ecosystem. It is certainly about the TV receiver, polarised or active switching; the glasses (easily forgotten but not necessarily 'in the box'). But it also takes in the decoding device - set-top box, games console or BD player; the distribution medium (broadcast/unicast), games console or 3D BD; the content and the process of capture, editing and contribution, including broadcasting infrastructure when not printed to disc.
Only about 20 per cent of broadcaster equipment is HD, 30 per cent of TV screens and less than that of set-top boxes. We are still in a very early stage of actual upgrade across the HD ecosystem. And while the HD infrastructure across broadcasters and operators can be used to transmit lower resolution 3D to some existing HD PVRs, all those TV screens will need replacing.
Price is a murky issue spanning both consumer and professional equipment. Many of the early announced prices for 3D TV sets are considerable inflations on similar non-3D TVs. This is especially true for passive polarised, where more technology is built into the display. However, active switching, offering screens at similar prices to non-3D displays, have a hidden cost: the glasses may cost up to $150 a pair, a major consumer cost.... Read More...