Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[Steedeel]

Anthony, i had technics seperates with very high quality bookshelf speakers. Also listened through very good set of cans. I occasionally used my personal cd/walkman but not as often. Oh, and it had a record player which beats the crap out of cds!

[krazeyeyez]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

no, you have it backwards. It is not about A but about B. Did LD exist because VHS was never profitable, did studios make copies on VHS until 2006 because DVD was not profitable until then? Joe can choose today to buy a film or rent it, is it because neither buying nor renting is profitable? Studios don’t like to leave money on the table so as long as studios said “that guy is willing to pay for LD” and LD was truly profitable they supported it, same with VHS. Eventually the question arises “will the gains in profitability in A, from the people that use B now switching to A, offset the loss of what we do now in B while not PO too many people” and if they think the answer is yes then they do it.

That is why I find the death of physical media easier to say than for it to be a reality. Some people pick physical media because they like that it is tangible, others because of the AV quality, others because it is more practical (can bring it to friends homes more easily, there are places where one might not have broadband.....), others because there are no extra costs (50$ BD player and you can watch the 1000 movie library you bought, but 1000 movies on a media server means an expensive server and a hell of a big RAID array)

And together they all add up to a large segment of the market that is also spending a lot.

As i said i don't think its close by any means, however i do see streaming and blu-ray coexisting for a longer time then say dvd hanging on. Streaming really would lend itself far more to DRM and control, and frankly the indusrty both needs and wants that. Really have to include that in to the profit discussion.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by krazeyeyez

As i said i don't think its close by any means, however i do see streaming and blu-ray coexisting for a longer time then say dvd hanging on. Streaming really would lend itself far more to DRM and control, and frankly the indusrty both needs and wants that. Really have to include that in to the profit discussion.

agree

PS I just had to add the issue with DRM is the same as disks. If you have an envelope with a letter in it. You can make the envelope as tamper proof as you want but if someone can get the letter out it does not matter anymore how good the envelope is. It is not that DVDs are easily piratable because they are disks, but people found out how to get the data out of the disk and CSS, Same with BD. IF a movie is digital and someone finds a way to brake (circumvent) the DRM how is it any better against pirating? Now I am guessing someone will say “but it is easier to change the DRM if cracked” but the issue is that the film needs to be playable at the other end and that means creating and sending the new DRM to every ones player, by that time the pirate could have made a copy of every film out there and have a real good hint of what was changed code wise.

[Chordata]

Originally Posted by Terjyn

This is blatantly wrong if their choice results in Blu-Rays or other high quality media going away.

It's not blatantly wrong at all. In the future it might be "if their choice results in Blu-Rays or other high quality media going away" - but that hasn't happened.

[Steedeel]

Film always has and always will be intended for the biggest screen possible. It is simply wrong to watch on a mobile screen.

[Chordata]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Film always has and always will be intended for the biggest screen possible. It is simply wrong to watch on a mobile screen.

LOL. These threads are killing me. I love the people who think they get to determine what is "right" and "wrong" and "stupid" and "smart" when it comes to personal preferences and opinions.

Some men you just can't reach.

[Steedeel]

Film is about spectacle, cinematography, atmosphere and of course story. Imagine watching Inception on a 3.5-4 inch mobile and then watch on a large 40 inch plus Hd tv? It is in my opinion, ignorance to watch films on such a pathetically small screen. Story you can follow, yes, but little else. Tragic, just tragic.

[Chordata]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Film is about spectacle, cinematography, atmosphere and of course story. Imagine watching Inception on a 3.5-4 inch mobile and then watch on a large 40 inch plus Hd tv? It is in my opinion, ignorance to watch films on such a pathetically small screen. Story you can follow, yes, but little else. Tragic, just tragic.

I've lost the ability to comprehend these type of posts and this way of thinking. It's like the real world doesn't exist for some people. Only this little subworld where high def is king and mandatory, and everything else is stupid, tragic, gross, nasty, silly, yucky, and poo-poo pants.

I'll bow out of this thread now to stop the derailment. Anyone, please feel free to PM me if you want to respond to any of my posts and we can talk via PM.

[Steedeel]

Watch on a mobile do we?

What makes you think YOUR view is correct and mine is not. Just because many people do a certain thing, does not make it right.

[Chordata]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Watch on a mobile do we?

What makes you think YOUR view is correct and mine is not. Just because many people do a certain thing, does not make it right.

CANT.STAY.AWAY.

To answer your first question, no, I've never watched a movie on a phone. I have watched them on an iPad. On a plane, yesterday waiting for hours on a couch somewhere, etc. Is it good quality? Of course not! It's just entertainment -- exactly like apps, gameboys, PSPs, MP3 players, etc. etc. etc. etc.

To answer your second question, again, you misunderstand this entire debate. I've never said my view is "correct". It's not an issue of "right or wrong". I can't believe some of you guys think that's the case. It's an issue of "what people prefer". If they prefer low-quality, small-screen, on-the-go entertainment, so be it! If you prefer high-quality, large-screen, comfort-of-your-own house entertainment, so be it! Neither is "right" or "wrong".

Like I said pages ago, if someone says "my digital copy on my iPhone is better quality than your BD on your 50" plasma", that is an incorrect statement. If that same person says "I prefer my digital copy on my iPhone to your BD on your 50" plasma" that is neither correct nor incorrect, as silly as it might be. It's not a tragedy. They're not uneducated and stupid.

Oh my God I hate myself for posting this.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

and because some think records are better than CDs there are still records being produced and sold.

Constituting less than 2% of the market (in spite of a 33% increase in sales in 2011) and almost never produced by the original label, but licensed out to specialty labels, like Sundazed. J&R, for example, still stocks 124,000 different CDs, but only 6100 different vinyl titles and they consider themselves to be a vinyl specialist. (And my bet is that a fair percentage of those 6100 are actually out of stock or out of print.)

You don't want BD to get to this state. Very few titles will be released.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Film always has and always will be intended for the biggest screen possible. It is simply wrong to watch on a mobile screen.

A four inch screen of sufficient resolution held close to the face will fill just as much of one's vision as a large TV from a typical viewing distance.

Such irrational elitism does no one any good; it doesn't hurt you if someone watches a movie in a way that you don't feel is appropriate. Strictly speaking, films were "always" intended to be seen in a cinema. Does that mean it's wrong for me to watch it on a 50 inch TV set? A 40 inch TV? 30 inch? A 15 inch laptop? A 10 inch tablet? A 5 inch smartphone? Get your eyeballs close enough to a screen of sufficient resolution and it doesn't matter what size it is.

And isn't the discussion about the likelihood of streaming wiping out physical media? I don't know about you, but I use Netflix on my TV a lot more often than I use it on my phone. Not because I have some weird aversion to viewing video on smaller screens, but just because if I'm in the mood to actively watch something, odds are that I'm at home where I can put it on the TV.

Originally Posted by Chordata

[speaking of mobile media] Is it good quality?

It can be. Even smartphones have HD screens now, and if you can get a quality connection on it (whether 4G or wifi), you can get great quality, especially if you download rather than stream.

[Musashi]

I just a TV ad today for mobile media. A real eye roller in my view.

Verizon says "For 46 years every Super Bowl has been viewed the same way, until this one!" Then the ad proceeds to show an NFL mobile ap and instruct viewers, "This year, watch the Super Bowl on NFL Mobile from Verizon!"

I look and think "You seriously expect ppl to forget about their TVs and whip out their phones to watch a championship? Sounds like a shameful step backwards to me." For the ap to be helpful in this regard, someone would have to:

1. Care about the game
AND
2. Be away from a TV when it airs.

Only viable use I see for that is if some kind of emergency occurs during the game requiring someone to abandon the TV.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

A four inch screen of sufficient resolution held close to the face will fill just as much of one's vision as a large TV from a typical viewing distance.

Such irrational elitism does no one any good; it doesn't hurt you if someone watches a movie in a way that you don't feel is appropriate. Strictly speaking, films were "always" intended to be seen in a cinema. Does that mean it's wrong for me to watch it on a 50 inch TV set? A 40 inch TV? 30 inch? A 15 inch laptop? A 10 inch tablet? A 5 inch smartphone? Get your eyeballs close enough to a screen of sufficient resolution and it doesn't matter what size it is.

And isn't the discussion about the likelihood of streaming wiping out physical media? I don't know about you, but I use Netflix on my TV a lot more often than I use it on my phone. Not because I have some weird aversion to viewing video on smaller screens, but just because if I'm in the mood to actively watch something, odds are that I'm at home where I can put it on the TV.


It can be. Even smartphones have HD screens now, and if you can get a quality connection on it (whether 4G or wifi), you can get great quality, especially if you download rather than stream.

And damage your long term eyesight in the process! Utter tripe in my opinion.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Musashi

I just a TV ad today for mobile media. A real eye roller in my view.

Verizon says "For 46 years every Super Bowl has been viewed the same way, until this one!" Then the ad proceeds to show an NFL mobile ap and instruct viewers, "This year, watch the Super Bowl on NFL Mobile from Verizon!"

I look and think "You seriously expect ppl to forget about their TVs and whip out their phones to watch a championship? Sounds like a shameful step backwards to me." For the ap to be helpful in this regard, someone would have to:

1. Care about the game
AND
2. Be away from a TV when it airs.

Only viable use I see for that is if some kind of emergency occurs during the game requiring someone to abandon the TV.

It is a joke. If this is the future, it will kill film for me and i suspect millions others.

[krazeyeyez]

Originally Posted by Musashi

I just a TV ad today for mobile media. A real eye roller in my view.

Verizon says "For 46 years every Super Bowl has been viewed the same way, until this one!" Then the ad proceeds to show an NFL mobile ap and instruct viewers, "This year, watch the Super Bowl on NFL Mobile from Verizon!"

I look and think "You seriously expect ppl to forget about their TVs and whip out their phones to watch a championship? Sounds like a shameful step backwards to me." For the ap to be helpful in this regard, someone would have to:

1. Care about the game
AND
2. Be away from a TV when it airs.

Only viable use I see for that is if some kind of emergency occurs during the game requiring someone to abandon the TV.

A marketing campaign using the super bowl, crazy, its not like that event has viewers.

That fact an option like that exists should tell you why streaming is such a great addition in terms of entertainment. I can think of a thousand scenarios where one might not be home or at a friends for the event, but can still catch some if not all of it on the go.

How an APP like this leads some to think people are turning off the big screen to watch on their smart phone has me literally scratching my head in amazement.

I think everyone has bad/wrong viewing habits in this thread if they watch anything other then at a theater that uses film based projectors, just saying. Your killing movies!

[Musashi]

Originally Posted by krazeyeyez

How an APP like this leads some to think people are turning off the big screen to watch on their smart phone has me literally scratching my head in amazement.

I was criticizing the way the commercial phrases it. Their choice of words implies exactly that.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

Constituting less than 2% of the market (in spite of a 33% increase in sales in 2011) and almost never produced by the original label, but licensed out to specialty labels, like Sundazed. J&R, for example, still stocks 124,000 different CDs, but only 6100 different vinyl titles and they consider themselves to be a vinyl specialist. (And my bet is that a fair percentage of those 6100 are actually out of stock or out of print.)

You miss the point, the reason I brought in records is precisely because of the low market share, the point is that a couple of decades after records where no longer the norm they still exist because the small number of diehard fans still buy them

People seem to have the impression that if the masses are not buying something that there is no market for it. Isn’t this what the discussion is all about. Some guy that says “ I know some kid that is watching Netflix streaming on his iPhopne, so that is the future and BD will soon disappear.”

If you like something the question is not if the masses like it but if there are other diehards taht like what you like.

You don't want BD to get to this state. Very few titles will be released.

I think one day BD (as we know it today) will be gone (the same way VHS, LD, DVD, D-VHS...), but I don’t think it will be because of low quality DL and people watching crap on their phones to drown out what is happening around them. It will be because the people that want quality found something better (maybe 4k BD, maybe some new format that we don't know yet and yes maybe even digital distribution, I don’t know)

The issue with records 9and why it is so low) is that there is a schism between analogue and digital. The guy that buys records does that because it is not digitally modified by sampling it. In the movie world that schism won't exist and so you should not see such a small fringe. It should be more like CD in that sense. The masses that watch low quality Netflix streaming for 8$ a month and the people that want quality and a collection so they spend some $ on quality and a BD. The masses might be listening to digital music but this was the first year that in the US digital distribution surpassed CD and internationaly (and most other countries) CD sales are still much higher.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

A four inch screen of sufficient resolution held close to the face will fill just as much of one's vision as a large TV from a typical viewing distance.

yes and no, usualy we discuss how much of the frield of vision is filled but that is because we are discussing largeer screens of varying sizes seen from far away. If we where cyclopses I would guess what you say is true, and it would be true if we are comparing a 40" to 60" but we are built with stereoscopic vision and so when something real small (like a 4") is real close (to fill up the field of vision to the same extent) you need to add it to the equation. Do you see the nose on your face when looking normally? no because it is too close to your eyes. Now close the left eye, and it is there, close the right eye and it is there again (but the opposite side), but your brain removes it in what you see because it does not fit in with what it considers important (i.e. if the predator was that close to your face you would be dead already) . Our system is build to watch something feet from our face, not glued on them.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by krazeyeyez

How an APP like this leads some to think people are turning off the big screen to watch on their smart phone has me literally scratching my head in amazement.

agree, just because there is an ad does not mean that anyone takes it seriously. Ads are all about that, to try and convince people they want something that they don't (if someone wanted something he would not need an ad to tell him). Super bowl parties will exist for ever and that means people will always have TVs (well at least until it can be beamed directly to our brains), not just for this, but other stuff as well. Someone has to travel and can't be in front of the TV maybe this is good fopr them, a kid that wants nothing to do with his dorky parents and their friends might be in his room watching it on his phone. But sooner or later there won't be that emergency situation where the guy does not have the choice and so the phone was better than nothing and the kid will grow up and he will want to watch with his dorky friends.