Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[Terjyn]

Originally Posted by singhcr

Why don't you see it as a legit comparison? To me, they are very similar. Home video has become better and better over time with VHS to DVD to Blu-ray, but they all relied on a TV and physical media for delivery. Now the push is for portable video devices and streaming, which may be HD in terms of resolution, but is around the same bitrate as DVD. Many streaming sites like Hulu aren't anywhere close to HD resolution, let alone DVD.

Because Music and Movies/TV are not remotely similar in any way. I don't know why people even try to draw a comparison. What's the musical equivalent of a bigger TV? What's the movie equivalent of listening while jogging? I don't know a single person who views movie watching as a similar concept to listening to music, so why do pundits try to compare them as if one will drive the other? The music sales industry is utterly "dying", while Movies are doing good. If they are so similar, why is this happening?

As for SACD/DVD-A, that failed primarily because of the format war. If BD and HD DVD were still fighting now, we wouldn't see nearly the adoption rate we have now.

Exactly. Music died because of a format war. Movies did not. Therefore, for some reason people actually cared enough about upgraded/improved movies to make it succeed in spite of a war. Blu-Ray could have just as easily died as SACD/DVD-A did, but it didn't. For a format war to end, people have to care.

[Penton-Man]

Re: Physical Media

Discussions are going on with the BDA about a new compression scheme which would extend the Blu-ray spec to 4k.

Physical media isn’t ending anytime soon, the best minds in the business are at work at expanding its horizons with innovation. Such expensive R & D would not be happening if it was felt by senior management that physical media was on its last leg.

[Blu Titan]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Re: Physical Media

Discussions are going on with the BDA about a new compression scheme which would extend the Blu-ray spec to 4k.

Physical media isn’t ending anytime soon, the best minds in the business are at work at expanding its horizons with innovation. Such expensive R & D would not be happening if it was felt by senior management that physical media was on its last leg.

[Johnny Vinyl]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Re: Physical Media

Discussions are going on with the BDA about a new compression scheme which would extend the Blu-ray spec to 4k.

Physical media isn’t ending anytime soon, the best minds in the business are at work at expanding its horizons with innovation. Such expensive R & D would not be happening if it was felt by senior management that physical media was on its last leg.

Originally Posted by Blu Titan

Can you expand?

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by singhcr

That's true, people do focus on movies more intently than they do with music. However, the picture quality for many people is going down with the growing popularity of streaming video and smartphones.

agree to a point, but it is still very few people and very few cases. Physical media can't die until the vast (almost everyone) majority does not see a difference 100% of the time. If someone has Netflix streaming for shovelware and Netflix disk for things he cares more about, Netflix still needs disks for that person. Same here, it does not matter if Je says "I missed the episode last night, let's check it out on-line" when after the season is over he goes and buys the BD set or buys other stuff on BD.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by HDMe

True... but if you have more than one car or your car doesn't have that... then it's much more convenient to have an iPhone or iPad or something like that and be able to load a few digital copies onto it... They are lower quality, but on the small screen it still looks good.

you can get a portable DVD player for much less than 100$ and a BD player for less than an ipod or iphone. And unless it is insalled in the car you can easily remove it and put it in the second car all they do is plug in the lighter when not running on battery. On the other hand if someone does not have an ipod/iphone sitting around doing nothing, how does that help them.

The larger point really was that in the car was the only place I could think of where people might make a habit of settling for lower quality video than they would in their home... so I could see non-physical-media being ok there.

agree, but we still need to be objective. You are in the car, kids are getting antsy and you want to quite them a bit so you pass your iphone (hoping no one will call) and it can be useful. But if it is seen as a real solution (and not plan B, C or D) everything needs to be compared and that was what I was doing. The simple reality is that an iphone/ipad cost a lot more and throwing in the back of the car 1,2,3,10 BD/DVDs is a lot simpler and less time consuming compared to making a digital copy on the ipod/iphone and if you go with streaming it gets extremely expensive fast.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by John72953

Can you expand?

Achieving quality 4k compression for physical media (BD) should not be a major obstacle. For instance, apparently Red Ray proved the concept [although I don’t know how stressful the actual scenes were] at low bitrates and even DVD-sized disc space and demos reportedly showed superior PQ over the Blu-ray format. Fast forward to the present time, with a newer compression scheme…HEVC tests demonstrate twice the efficiency of the MPEG-4, H.264 standard. The precise nature of how this is accomplished gets complicated but in a nutshell, it differs from standard MPEG-4 in that it utilizes a 64 x 64 hierarchical quad-tree block which enables the processing to be partitioned in order that larger sections of the 64×64 block use less bits whereas those requiring more detail can receive more bits (< from the conference I attended last week).

The unclear aspect of the 4k physical media-to-home process is how and exactly when to implement another pocket shocker to the all but the highest-end consumer…complicated by the marketing factor of how it (4k) fits together as a solution for eventual glasses-free 3D TV offerings down the road.

In looking back at the launch of 3DBD and readily available 3D source at that time, Sony has a comparatively prolific 4k library (as well as an on-going commitment to producing 4k DIs of new motion pictures, whether captured on 35mm film or with 4k digital cameras) and once all the home theater pieces were to be in place (new approved standard, a suite of 4k displays, etc.) could quickly start creating quality 4k Blu-ray movies. Other content providers should be able to eventually display the same capability as recent technological advances have now enabled the feasibility of practical 4K imaging systems which are expected to become the norm in high-end cinema productions in the very near future.

[singhcr]

Thanks for the info, Penton.

Do you know when Sony started using 4K DIs? I am hoping that Casino Royale (2006) is on that list, but I doubt it.

[Penton-Man]

Colorworks (the DI facility on the lot which has an end-to-end 4k pipeline in place) opened for business in Nov. ’09; however, even prior to that Sony/Columbia Pictures would, on a case-by-case basis, commission other post houses (such as EFILM and TDI) who were charged with doing the post production on whatever the respective motion picture, to occasionally produce a 4k digital intermediate. If memory serves, it all started back in ‘04 with Spider-Man 2.

On another note, future 4k physical home media offerings of movies is not like selling a digital master of the motion picture to the consumer as not all 4k for exhibition is created equal. For instance, the DCP specs for theatrical Digital Cinema consist of a different compression (JPEG 2000), increased number of bits per color component, different color space, etc.

It’s just like your Blu-rays are not equivalent to digital masters of the many motion pictures shot with HD cameras despite the fact that both are of the same 'resolution', i.e. 1920x1080 . Heck, the HD masters have typically been 10 bit 4:2:2 source in contradistinction to the final 8-bit 4:2:0 colorspace used for Blu-ray, which yields a different picture quallity.

P.S.
2k D.I. on Royale.

[singhcr]

Thanks for the info! I figured Casino Royale would be 2k, but part of me dared to hope that my favorite film of all time could be available at 4k.

Would it be correct to assume that the color space for the 4k BD spec will be the same as it is for the 1080p BDs (8-bit 4:2:0)? If so, I imagine there would be little reason to buy 4k BDs that are upsampled from their 2k DI sources. It is like getting some of the K&M Jackie Chan releases on BD that are derived from DVD sources: they look better than the DVD, but is it enough to re-buy them?

BTW, when you refer to "4k2k", are you referring to the number of vertical and horizontal pixels (4000x2000)?

[Penton-Man]

It’s my general shorthand for 4096x2160 panels, where 4096 is number of pixels wide (horizontally) and 2160 is number of pixels vertically.

If you’re a fan of the Bond franchise, heads-up…
http://www.mi6-hq.com/news/index.php...medium=twitter

[singhcr]

That's great news, thanks for the heads up! The franchise was on hold for some time due to the MGM bankruptcy proceedings, it's nice to see another movie coming. I am really looking forward to seeing Sam Mendes's take on the franchise. If Road to Perdition is anything to go by, he is capable of making a movie that balances story, drama, and action... unlike the last film. I'm not sure if the editor and/or second unit is to blame entirely for that, but Quantum of Solace was one of the most difficult movies for me to process due to the crazy editing that made it very difficult to figure out what is going on.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by singhcr

That's great news, thanks for the heads up! The franchise was on hold for some time due to the MGM bankruptcy proceedings, it's nice to see another movie coming. I am really looking forward to seeing Sam Mendes's take on the franchise. If Road to Perdition is anything to go by, he is capable of making a movie that balances story, drama, and action... unlike the last film. I'm not sure if the editor and/or second unit is to blame entirely for that, but Quantum of Solace was one of the most difficult movies for me to process due to the crazy editing that made it very difficult to figure out what is going on.

Well, that was a fast response time by a lot of news organizations, film websites, etc.
Google ‘James Bond Skyfall’ today and note the times.

[beyond 1000]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

actually it is more based on ignorance than anything else

Saw your response on Greatgreg and buddy you are totally out to lunch on your answers. Continuing making physical media is a huge cost for the movie industry. Once they get start up costs in place, then it is gravy train for them compared to Bluray.

BTW. How is that 8 track working for you.

[captaincarl]

Perhaps I should read the entire thread first but my main concern for non-physical media ie. streaming or what not is that you are reliant on having internet access in order to use what you technically have paid for. If you download a digital copy you have to store it on a hard drive, which puts you back to using physical media. Also as others have mentioned, to experience the best uncompressed VQ/AQ without any buffering or loss in quality would require a framework that to my knowledge does not exist yet to the commercial masses.

Even the most advanced firm/corporation usually keeps a hard copy of their data somewhere just in case their systems go down. To many have been burned by data corruption/error no file present bs still existing in today's electronic/digital filing systems.

Don't get me wrong, all my concerns will be addressed as technology leaps forward but I do not see this becoming the standard anytime soon. Hell blu rays have been around for more than half a decade and DVDs still dominate the market because its just cheaper and most really do not care that the audio is lossless or that the video looks mirror quality.

But then again this is just my opinon....and if it wasn't for this site I really wouldn't be thinking about this topic, I would just be watching another great movie.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by beyond 1000

Saw your response on Greatgreg and buddy you are totally out to lunch on your answers. Continuing making physical media is a huge cost for the movie industry. Once they get start up costs in place, then it is gravy train for them compared to Bluray.

BTW. How is that 8 track working for you.

Actually, it's not a huge cost. This is the fallacy when people think that virtual media should be far lower priced than physical media. The major costs are not in manufacturing the product and packaging. The major costs are in production (mastering and in the case of older films, restoration), marketing, back-end participations (royalty payments to actors, directors) and licensing (music, artwork, etc.)

Having said that, I think that most consumers will eventually move to virtual media, just as they've done in the music industry. But Netflix's recent debacle proves that the market is not yet ready for an all-downloadable world. And the price on BDs (and certainly DVDs) is dropping so quickly, especially on catalog titles, that physical media is actually a really good buy, especially if you sell your disks after watching them.

Also, one media doesn't necessarily replace another media - they can co-exist. And so physical and virtual media can certainly co-exist with one another and will for many years to come. And there are plenty of places in the U.S. where there's no decent high-speed service, so downloading movies, especially in HD, is simply not practical.

And I would argue that the infrastructure costs for maintaining a large library of movies on e-commerce servers for download are enormous and require large capital expenditures that dwarf the $1 or so it takes to manufacture a BD and package.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by beyond 1000

Saw your response on Greatgreg and buddy you are totally out to lunch on your answers.

funny how you can’t even find one example of where it is off so you need a general statement that is useless while I posted in detail why his assumptions were completely wrong.

BTW. How is that 8 track working for you.

Why would I be listening to 8 track I am perfectly happy with my CDs that are still made since over 10 tears after DL music hit the market it is still the best way for the music industry to sell their product and so they still support it. Maybe I should be asking you since if some idiot told you it was cool you would most likely be all excited about buying some.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

Actually, it's not a huge cost. This is the fallacy when people think that virtual media should be far lower priced than physical media. The major costs are not in manufacturing the product and packaging. The major costs are in production (mastering and in the case of older films, restoration), marketing, back-end participations (royalty payments to actors, directors) and licensing (music, artwork, etc.)

I don’t know why it is so hard for some people to grasp that. You don’t pay for 10 cents of plastic but for the movie and that does not change if it is physical media or digital distribution.

Also, one media doesn't necessarily replace another media - they can co-exist. And so physical and virtual media can certainly co-exist with one another and will for many years to come. And there are plenty of places in the U.S. where there's no decent high-speed service, so downloading movies, especially in HD, is simply not practical.

Exactly if people want something it does not disappear, that is why 10 years after digital music appeard CD sales are still there and will continue for some time and LP sales still exist even though CDs came out in the 80’s. A media only disappears once everyone decides there is something better and with the low quality of digital video it would take an insane person to assume physical media will disappear soon.

And I would argue that the infrastructure costs for maintaining a large library of movies on e-commerce servers for download are enormous and require large capital expenditures that dwarf the $1 or so it takes to manufacture a BD and package.

That is what they don’t get. With physical media you have a fixed cost per copy which is very low and so if every copy is sold they always make money. With DL there is no cost per copy but the costs are high, fixed and continuous so if very few are “buying” a title it gets extremely expensive real fast. That is why I can go to my local BD shop and get many movies that where made available years ago but with DL you can see many titles that have disappeared from the different sites like Netflix or Vudu, once the rush of rentals slowed down they where taken off for more interesting titles.

[Prox]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I don’t know why it is so hard for some people to grasp that. You don’t pay for 10 cents of plastic but for the movie and that does not change if it is physical media or digital distribution.

While I agree that most people don't grasp this idea, I think the larger issue or complaint is that, to the end user, digital media offers less for the same price. Why purchase a digital copy (which is just a license to view under certain conditions) when you can, for a comparable price, get some sort of physical element along with the film, game, etc.?

A simpler, mathematical way of looking at it (again, from the end user perspective):
(Movie + case + liner notes + disc) > (Movie)

Early adopters and large purchasers drive the market. Of course a lot of us on this website are going to believe that physical media isn't going away; we're the ones who decide how long it stays around. We're the ones who will by dozens, if not hundreds, of movies and games in whatever format is the best in our eyes. Suzy Soccermom may download six films a year on her iPad, but that doesn't put a dent in the impact of my 50 Blu-ray purchases in the same year.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Prox

While I agree that most people don't grasp this idea, I think the larger issue or complaint is that, to the end user, digital media offers less for the same price. Why purchase a digital copy (which is just a license to view under certain conditions) when you can, for a comparable price, get some sort of physical element along with the film, game, etc.?

Agree, I don’t know why people advocate DL/streaming and think that there is something wrong that most would rather buy 50/50 on BD for 17.99 http://www.amazon.com/50-Blu-ray-Jos...7527642&sr=1-3 instead of 19.99 from Vudu http://www.vudu.com/movies/#!content/216630/5050 and then with DL you also have the cost of high-speed internet and HDD space. But the discussion was not on the merits of one over the other but Greatgreg and beyond 1000 that falsely believe that it costs a lot for a studio to distribute on physical media and that is what you are paying for (that bit of plastic) while digital distribution is relatively free (or close to that) for them and it is all profit

Early adopters and large purchasers drive the market. Of course a lot of us on this website are going to believe that physical media isn't going away; we're the ones who decide how long it stays around. We're the ones who will by dozens, if not hundreds, of movies and games in whatever format is the best in our eyes. Suzy Soccermom may download six films a year on her iPad, but that doesn't put a dent in the impact of my 50 Blu-ray purchases in the same year

Agree with that as well, made the same point countless times on other subjects as well (like DVD vs BD) It is not # of people but consumer spending that determines direction> I get into that debate every time I look at top 20 earners and someone says “who cares about that % it is the total BD/DVD that is important” not if you want to know direction.