"Club Penton" - Ask questions to Hollywood insider "Penton-Man"

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

i would love to feel safe in the knowledge that when Bluray is phased out there will be another high quality format to replace it. I see no evidence of this

Well, let me show you the evidence, again: it's called 'the entire history of commercial home video media'.

Originally Posted by Steedeel

and until i hear 4k discs are in the works i can't help but be concerned

In that case, you seriously need to educate yourself before you continue droning on. There's no point (repeat: no point) in producing a prerecorded 4K commercial format at any point in the near future.

1) There's hardly a 4K or better pipeline in place for production in Hollywood yet

2) There are very few productions for which the distinction between a 4K release and a well-produced Blu-ray would even be practically visible, let alone significant, even to the high-end market

3) The consumer base with access to screens of a size able to take significant advantage of a 4K medium is tiny and will remain so for a long time

All a 4K format would do is unnecessarily confuse the market. If '4K coming down the pike' is your guidepost for quality releasing in the near-term future, you're simply looking in the wrong direction.

[Steedeel]

What direction should i be looking at? The Internet?

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

What direction should i be looking at?

As many of us have said, many times: Blu-ray. It's not going anywhere and there's really no evident market cause to attempt to replace it in the next few years.

[Objectivity]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Well, let me show you the evidence, again: it's called 'the entire history of commercial home video media'.

I agree with everything you're saying regarding the unlikelihood of physical medial disappearing. However, this specific reason why doesn't really hold water.

First, past history does not indicate future results. In the past, the next generation of media was always a physical format because there was no other option. That paradigm has shifted. There could now be a reality where non-physical media would give mainstream consumers the product they want and with most people not really seeing the difference between the disc product and streaming product they may opt for online delivery due to convenience and reduced price (if such a model were created).

The main obstacles at this point to that happening isn't image/sound quality, rather the uncertainty about ownership. People don't want to buy a movie and then lose access to it when they upgrade hardware of software. Once that hurdle is cleared and a permanent, online media library for every person can be established, then physical media may become less valued except among audio/videophiles and professional entities.

Imaging that ever happening. If 80% of entertainment media were purchased digitally and streamed (or downloaded) can you see a reality where many media products are released online only, especially those with only limited interest? I could. I don't think it's a likely pathway for the industry, but I wouldn't completely rule it out either.

[Doctorossi]

Objectivity, my suggestion to research the history of the home video market is not dependent upon the continuation of physical media. The precedent I'm pointing at, which repeats itself ad nauseam, simply relates to supply and demand, regardless of delivery mechanism.

Basically, if you look at the video market, there has always been a smallish, but substantial and lucrative audience for high quality delivery and this market has always been served by the industry. For this to change in the future would mean the industry decided to leave the cream of the market on the table. And that's not how you beat the margin on year-on-year growth.

[Penton-Man]

On a weekend of reflection, the untold story of an F-16 fighter pilot –

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...ry.html?sub=AR

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Objectivity

AT&T Uverse dropped ESPN 3D because the usage fees weren't worth it for the buy in rate they had to 3D content in general. They're not following the fans, they're following the money.

Don't take this personaly but that is BS. First of all AT&T Uverse is a non-player as a BDU, what do they have between 3-4 M subscribers? Second they added it just in time for FIFA and a bit after FIFA was over they cancelled the channel. It had nothing to do "with subscribers", it was a plain and simple money grab, charge people 10$ to see the games in 3D and then cancel it because the infrastructure is highly limited and it can’t really handle it. Think about it, channels like this are per subscriber so AT&T so they would make money on it even if there was only one user if there was no limit to what they can offer then why would they care if it was 10 people or 1M or all of them, it would still be extra profit for them, but 3D needs more BW and they would rather have a couple of overcompressed 2D channels then a 3D channel. Now compare AT&T to the other BDUs that offered it for free and see if it was truly because people don’t want 3D or that AT&T was out for a quick buck on the most popular sporting event.

Think about how most people watch TV. They turn to their favorite channels to see what's on or they go to specific shows. For most people, none of those are in 3D yet. Until that happens, broadcast 3D is a tough sell. Movies aren't a big draw either because the group mentality can't exist. When people first bought HDTVs they told their friends, "Come over and see this amazing picture." They can't do that with 3D. At best they can say, "Come over and see a really blurry picture and I'll let you put on special glasses for a few minutes to make it look good. Unfortunately, I have two pairs of glasses and there are seven of you."

Don’t know about you most of the time I don’t have a lot of friends over when I watch TV. As for 2 glasses, I guess it would depend how many people are in the family and regularly there. But maybe I am not as much of a show off as you since when I have friends over for a movie it is about enjoying a movie and not to show off the new gear I bought.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

The point is that, this is another small step in the right direction of technological progress (the availability now of a home version projector which supports 4k native resolution).

For the consumer, as far as *realized* resolution benefit goes (when it launches), I guess you will have to rely upon reviewers’ assessments as to how well the 4K upscaler performs with Blu-ray movies as compared to the more typical 1080p projectors on the market before you decide to make your purchase…. if you’re a high end home theater enthusiast.

agree, but when I first saw it discussed here I was more excited since I thought it would be passive glasses like the cinema projectors instead of active shutter. I would have considered that more of a small step in the right direction. So it does not appear to be as big a step or the direction I would prefer as I hoped (with no real 4k format to watch it is not that exciting since it is just upsacled 4k- a nice bonus if we had 2k passive glasses but with active glasses that just means adding upscaling artefacts to the image)

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I seldom have the time to scan all the threads here on the forum but, at the price point revealed (at least for Japan), I’m actually surprised that there is not more buzz about this product....esp. since it came to market so quickly when it was initially introduced more as a device *of the future*.

I think it is interesting for business travel (though it is 720p) but I think the issue is that most people don't tend to watch by themselves and even though I hate it when people talk during a film it is still a social activity.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Kerfrank, it may sound odd to you but i would love to feel safe in the knowledge that when Bluray is phased out there will be another high quality format to replace it. I see no evidence of this and until i hear 4k discs are in the works i can't help but be concerned. Now people have already suggested there will be no physical media after bluray. Let's say that is true. That leaves us with downloads/streaming only, yes? Therefore, we are completely reliant on good connections, time of day, source material which will probably be highly compromised and broadband speed. No connection, no film, is a possibility.

Now, that very simple scenario is a possibility. It is also a possibility that once people start believing the HD download/streaming (in my opinion) bullshit, they will buy into it and the industry won't see the need for higher quality streaming.
Now i am left with no HQ source and just my old blurays to watch on a loop. (A very long loop admittedly)
In these times of RED digital cameras and 4k resolution, that is what we should be concerned with adopting. Not some (in my opinion) awful, cheap and nasty streaming quality that looks like old VHS a lot of the time and dvd if we are lucky.

in 2000 did you know BD was on the way? It is still to early for what ever will replace BD, when the time comes be it disk, cassettes, crystals, tattooed on a hot girls butt or even DL we can discuss what is happening. You won't get an answer now because no one knows what the future will hold. At this point in time BD is doing well andsales growing on a daily basis, so just enjoy it. HDTVs and HDTV broadcasts had started before DVD launched, let alone BD, so why are you so paranoid with this. There will be many years before what ever replaces BD hits the market and probably a few before we even get a serious inkling of what it will be.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

What direction should i be looking at? The Internet?

I think his point was that LD came out and did not go anywhere until which was an improvement came out, people did not revert back to VHS, DVD is being replaced by BD, id di not get replaced by cheap DL or VCD. CD has not dissapeared and is still 1/2 the music market even though itunes has been around for over a decade. Yes you have cheap people, yes you have people that don'ty care, but you always have people willing to pay for a premium product and a premium product has never vanished to a lesser one.

Just because some guy wants to sell his DL service and some moron takes it to heart and posts DL is the future does not make it so, just because some person would rather spend 8$ and does not give a crap how awful it looks and so tries to convince himself that “it looks just like BD” does not make it so and he just loses credibility.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Objectivity

I agree with everything you're saying regarding the unlikelihood of physical medial disappearing. However, this specific reason why doesn't really hold water.

agree so far but you fall way off after that

First, past history does not indicate future results. In the past, the next generation of media was always a physical format because there was no other option. That paradigm has shifted. There could now be a reality where non-physical media would give mainstream consumers the product they want and with most people not really seeing the difference between the disc product and streaming product they may opt for online delivery due to convenience and reduced price (if such a model were created).

the issue is people grouping stuff together, if I have an appleTV player, it does not play Netflix or Vudud and compariung VHS to DVD is even more alien then comparing DVD to DL where they are both digital streams. As for convenience and price, I disagree with that as well. First you can rent disks from Netflix for the same price as streaming, so where are the savings, if we move to purchases it is usualy cheaper to purchase on BD then it is Vudu, and let's face it, if we purchase/DL movies then they need storage, my guess for my BD library I would need around 30-40 TB who will pay for that mega server, but DL fanboys forget thto add that cost or the cost to the internet. As for convenience, I will just say 2 things, it was convenient for me to bring some BDs on my summer vaccation at my siters and friends cottages and when Irene hit and many people lost internet (I did not but my sister did) for a day or more it was convenient that when my power came back a few hours later I could watch my BDs, if streaming was my only option I would not have had that either.

The main obstacles at this point to that happening isn't image/sound quality, rather the uncertainty about ownership. People don't want to buy a movie and then lose access to it when they upgrade hardware of software. Once that hurdle is cleared and a permanent, online media library for every person can be established, then physical media may become less valued except among audio/videophiles and professional entities.

no, it is image and sound quality. The simple reality is that if everyone watched streaming video right now the quality would need to be much much much lower then the extremely low quality it is already. The internet could not handle it.

Imaging that ever happening. If 80% of entertainment media were purchased digitally and streamed (or downloaded) can you see a reality where many media products are released online only, especially those with only limited interest? I could. I don't think it's a likely pathway for the industry, but I wouldn't completely rule it out either.

I don't think it would, you are making the same mistake as Steedeel, limited interest usually equals more eclectic crowed. The more eclectic crowed will most likely fall in the 20% then the 80% who are happy with crap. Just look at LD, even though many big titles did not make it there, if you look at special editions and stuff they got more then VHS, the Star Wars films got a special LD edition in the 90’s but they only arrived on DVD in time to advertise phantom menace. Also if 80% of media sales were streamed then it would need to be lower then 360p quality and nothing near what you stream today.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

tattooed on a hot girls butt

Wave of the future, man.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Wave of the future, man.

Foward progress!!
or is it rear progress?

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by Objectivity

There could now be a reality where non-physical media would give mainstream consumers the product they want and with most people not really seeing the difference between the disc product and streaming product they may opt for online delivery due to convenience and reduced price (if such a model were created).

Could you link me the study/source showing/proving that most people are not really seeing the difference between the disc product and streaming product. You are passing this speculation as a fact, and I would like to make sure that we do indeed have a fact here

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Objectivity

If 80% of entertainment media were purchased digitally and streamed (or downloaded) can you see a reality where many media products are released online only, especially those with only limited interest? I could. I don't think it's a likely pathway for the industry, but I wouldn't completely rule it out either.

This isn't really a blue-sky discussion. Every cable and satellite company provides a DVR, and the common reason is that short-term programming (weekly shows, news, sports, etc.) are simply tape-delayed on a personal basis. Most non-network television shows are repeated constantly, often in the same week, allowing multiple opportunities for short-term delayed recording.

No one cares about ownership of this stuff, because it's either omnipresent, or ephemeral. What people care about are things that have some "premium" attached, or that they're certain they want to keep for various reasons. And at this point, they don't want to "purchase" any of the short term content at all, beyond whatever they're paying for the cable/satellite, the content packages they pay above the basic fee, and the hideous burden of being stuck with "commercial messages" on top of that.

Even if it's non-commercial, basic connection fees will be onerous, as they are now. I also see a huge difference in the quality of video and sound - and watching a 1080i signal on a bandwidth limited channel, complete with freezing and artifacts, is not what people want to purchase.

With packaged hard media, premium content will probably be the only thing people will by. I notice with a jaundiced eye that the current 24 to 48 hour "lease period" for video rentals on cable can be anywhere between $5 and $10, with risky result for artifacts, and abysmal sound. Often, a film will be the same price on Blu only weeks later. Obviously, the prime audience is the "Can't Wait!" crowd, a limited group at best, since they generally saw this content in theaters before that.

As far as series television goes, current prices are seen as too high - a series can retail between $30 and $90 - but why bother, when DVR can be timed in advance for an entire season? Is anyone thinking that they can sell a commercial program for the same rates, even without commercials? Not likely.

Much of the current audience is numb, watching commercials about intestinal blockage and other nonsense robotically, but an increasingly savvy audience is recording it, and zapping commercials. Fox On Demand is so desperate that their shows have fast-forwarding disabled, forcing viewers to sit through commercials in real time; that's not going to fly.

If anyone thinks that people will pay a cable fee, a premium channel fee, and an individual content item fee, every month, they are not being realistic. It's one more thing to cut out of the budget, just as DVD and Blu purchases are merely chugging along.

[Objectivity]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

Could you link me the study/source showing/proving that most people are not really seeing the difference between the disc product and streaming product. You are passing this speculation as a fact, and I would like to make sure that we do indeed have a fact here

It looks like I have a lot to respond to and it's late, so it won't all be tonight.

You're right. Saying most people don't see the difference is probably incorrect. More accurate would be most people don't care about the difference, although even then it is still speculation.

I can stand a few feet from my TV and watch something on Directv and notice the quality is noticeably compressed, and you know what. I can live with that. If I had some top-of-the-line 100" screen, it would probably bother me immensely, but with what I consider a "typical" household setup. (50" Panasonic 800U is the largest) I can live with it.

Most of the time, I just want to watch what I want to watch when I want to watch it. Given the choice of renting a Blu now and streaming it or waiting two days for Netflix, I'll watch the streaming version and I think most people are the same way.

If it's something I really like, then I'll buy it and benefit from the top-of-the-line audio/video in the future. But for day-to-day, it's secondary.

Expand that out to the discussion at hand. If enough people feel the way I do and they're fine streaming Saw XXXVII (as an example), then at some point it becomes a question as to whether the physical media is even necessary, especially titles like that which won't hold up as collectors pieces (no offense to Saw fans).

I don't think physical media will ever go away, but I don't think it's a laughable premise either.

[Steedeel]

Which is exactly the horror story scenario i fear. Although i doubt you will be ridiculed as much as me for suggesting so. Like i said before, if you are a TRUE home cinema enthusiast get off the fence and stop backing poor technology. The warning signs are there for all to see. If you want a projection setup with surround speakers and amps and expensive gear (or if you already own such a set-up) protect it. Stop feeding it garbage (in my opinion). Or face a future of trying to watch something like Avatar with blocky backgrounds, smudgy detail and a complete lack of cinematic quality. As for the sound.........oh dear!
Some of the great films are now 'in the bag' as far as i am concerned. I can watch Avatar, District 9, Jaws( hopefully next year) LOTR, Casino royale, Leon. The Pacific etc.. in stunning HD. But the future? I have my doubts. In my opinion, streaming technology will rip the cinematic experience apart and cheapen film for future generations.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Although i doubt you will be ridiculed as much as me for suggesting so.

Apologies if I've missed something, but I don't think you're being ridiculed. The difference I think we're identifying between your approach and that of Blu-dog, for example, is that while Blu-dog might mention this concern once or twice, in passing and in context, you are repeating the argument at full screed, over and over again. As far as I can see, that's the only "issue" I think people are reacting to in a way that you're interpreting as ridicule.

You've made the same argument a number of times now. This isn't my forum, but as far as I'm concerned you're welcome to make the same argument as many more times as you'd like. However, if you're interested in avoiding scenarios in which others here are irritated by your repetition, I would recommend taking a rest (in the knowledge that we all know where you stand) until such a time as something substantial changes in the marketplace, making the picture of the future look somewhat different than it has in the last month or so. In other words, let us know when you have something new to say about it and, until then, talk about something else.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Apologies if I've missed something, but I don't think you're being ridiculed. The difference I think we're identifying between your approach and that of Blu-dog, for example, is that while Blu-dog might mention this concern once or twice, in passing and in context, you are repeating the argument at full screed, over and over again. As far as I can see, that's the only "issue" I think people are reacting to in a way that you're interpreting as ridicule.

You've made the same argument a number of times now. This isn't my forum, but as far as I'm concerned you're welcome to make the same argument as many more times as you'd like. However, if you're interested in avoiding scenarios in which others here are irritated by your repetition, I would recommend taking a rest (in the knowledge that we all know where you stand) until such a time as something substantial changes in the marketplace, making the picture of the future look somewhat different than it has in the last month or so. In other words, let us know when you have something new to say about it and, until then, talk about something else.

I would actually go so far as to say: Keep a vigilant watch along the front lines for blu-raydom!!
At the first sight of blu-ray's eminent demise, please for all of us, send up the warning signs!!