Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[cricepng]

Originally Posted by RyanPom

Also forgot Man of Steel.

Wendell had already claimed MoS as being on the list. Actually it was the only one he says deserves to be on the list.

[RBBrittain]

Though I agree that BD is superior to downloads, I've even moved that way a little bit myself recently. For one thing, the industry is putting more effort into putting classic films out via download than BD.

Out of the 85 Oscar winners for Best Picture, 67 have been released on U.S. BD as of today. Of the remaining 18, however, 15 are available as HD downloads:

• The Broadway Melody (1928/29): iTunes
• Cimarron (1930/31): iTunes
• It Happened One Night (1934): iTunes
• The Great Ziegfeld (1936): Amazon, UV sites
• You Can't Take It With You (1938): Amazon, iTunes
• Going My Way (1944): Amazon, iTunes, UV sites
• All the King's Men (1949): Amazon, iTunes
• The Greatest Show on Earth (1952): Amazon, iTunes, UV sites
• Marty (1955): Amazon, iTunes, Vudu
• Around the World in 80 Days (1956): Amazon, iTunes, UV sites
• Tom Jones (1963): Amazon (rental-only on Vudu)
• A Man for All Seasons (1966): Amazon, iTunes, UV sites
• In the Heat of the Night (1968): Amazon, Vudu (BD pending)
• Ordinary People (1980): Amazon, iTunes, UV sites
• Terms of Endearment (1983): Amazon, iTunes, UV sites (BD pending)

(That doesn't count Oliver! (1968), only available on BD thru Twilight Time but available for download from Amazon, iTunes and UV sites. Getting around the TT dilemma on Oliver! was in part what led me to look into this.)

Of the remaining three, two -- The Lost Weekend (1945) and Hamlet (1948) -- are out on BD in the UK for those of us with region-free players; Hamlet also has an expensive Region A version from Japan. (Sunrise, which some of us count as co-winner in 1927/28 though AMPAS does not, has a region-free BD out in the UK; it's not out for download but its U.S. BD is pending.) That leaves only one Best Picture winner unavailable in any high-def format -- The Life of Emile Zola (1937) -- and even that can be downloaded in SD. And I'm sure if you look beyond Best Picture winners, the gap between BD & download availability will only get bigger.

(Edit: The sad part? Preparing older films for BD should be a prerequisite for releasing them as HD downloads. It's well-known that any proper studio-level digital master must have a higher pixel count than the target format; even 1080p transfers made for DVD clearly should not be used to make BDs or HD downloads. Preparing catalog product for BD should be seen as helping the inevitable transition to downloads -- not just as a niche for collectors.)

[I KEEL YOU]

This forum might not be the best to discuss this subject anymore than it would be discussing it on streamingmoviesisthebestthingsinceslicedbread.com

But I don't doubt that the average, non-videophile consumer prefers streaming. And no matter how much we try to deny and fight it, it's pretty much a one way street as far streaming/downloads beating physical media. Just like how Scorsese tried to preserve physical film, but in the end now he's forced to shoot digitally.

Me, I just hope that as many titles are released on blu ray as possible before those days come.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

This forum might not be the best to discuss this subject anymore than it would be discussing it on streamingmoviesisthebestthingsinceslicedbread.com

But I don't doubt that the average, non-videophile consumer prefers streaming. And no matter how much we try to deny and fight it, it's pretty much a one way street as far streaming/downloads beating physical media. Just like how Scorsese tried to preserve physical film, but in the end now he's forced to shoot digitally.

Me, I just hope that as many titles are released on blu ray as possible before those days come.

Even bluray fans are embracing streaming. It's a losing battle. I just hope those same people don't complain when they have no access to high quality product.

[bhampton]

Tech has the history to change for the worse.

I believe lps could sound better than digital audio.
I believe CRT was the best display type.

I, personally, won't live forever so I'm enjoying what I can as I go.

-Brian.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Even bluray fans are embracing streaming. It's a losing battle.

Physical sales were declining before MOST folks even knew about IPTV (streaming). IMO, once a market saturates and the content providers empty their vaults then sales will slide down. I believe the music industry shows this to be true with the sales of physical and non-physical not matching the sales of physical from several years ago.

I have never viewed IPTV as a competitor to physical media, it is the pay TV industry that will be the victim of IPTV. They will die and wither away before they (as an industry) will give folks what they want, as in al la carté programing. They have managed to stifle all attempts by lawmakers to force them to offer al la carté programing to their subs in the US. It appears the Canadian lawmakers are going to give al la carté programing another go.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

Physical sales were declining before MOST folks even knew about IPTV (streaming). IMO, once a market saturates and the content providers empty their vaults then sales will slide down.

not only that but there is also price erosion. For example back in 2006 when I bought my BD players BDs were mostly over 30$ here in Canada (lion's gate titles were the only ones a bit under 30) I had to set myself a soft 100$ limit or it could easily become ridiculous how much I spent each week, today in the Canadian BD deals forum someone linked to 3$ BDs. http://search.inetvideo.ca/search/ke...eid=c30ff8a671 . Yes in 2006 I could have bought a few more films, but not more than 10x more to combat price erosion. I am sure everyone that is buying films is spending less today or buying more films then they did a few years ago 9and most likely, like me, spending less and buying more).

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

like me, spending less and buying more).

Same here, good point.

Market saturation can not be overstated, I don't follow games but I believe game sales are flat or down, TV sales are down and PC sales are down (not sure if that is revenue or units or both). Would not be surprised to see an uptick in game sales with the new consoles hitting the market.

An area that I am most interested in is video projectors. Some have commented on the number of "no shows" at the recent CEDIA in the US, for me, that is not a good sign. I know of at least one manufacture that is opting out of the projector business. I sure thought JVC would have a native 4K projector at CEDIA but it was MIA.

[KRW1]

I think the projector market is pretty quiet but will pick up again once 4k models fall to more reasonable prices.

[vargo]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Even bluray fans are embracing streaming. It's a losing battle. I just hope those same people don't complain when they have no access to high quality product.

If there are no more physical formats, then eventually digitally delivered content will be higher quality. All the improvements in the future (in the areas of resolution, color, framerate, compression etc) would be exclusive to digital distribution.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by vargo

If there are no more physical formats, then eventually digitally delivered content will be higher quality. All the improvements in the future (in the areas of resolution, color, framerate, compression etc) would be exclusive to digital distribution.

With very little take up. Only so much detail you can see on a smartphone or smartwatch after all.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by KRW1

I think the projector market is pretty quiet but will pick up again once 4k models fall to more reasonable prices.

That may come to pass but the Sony 1100 cost a fair amount MORE than the 1000 it replaces (the 1000 is now 2 years old). IMO, the optics required of a 4K projector will keep the price quite high for some time to come. The new 600 is less expensive but the optics are not the same as the 1000/1100 (and I hope to procure a 600 in the near future).

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

This forum might not be the best to discuss this subject anymore than it would be discussing it on streamingmoviesisthebestthingsinceslicedbread.com

But I don't doubt that the average, non-videophile consumer prefers streaming. And no matter how much we try to deny and fight it, it's pretty much a one way street as far streaming/downloads beating physical media. Just like how Scorsese tried to preserve physical film, but in the end now he's forced to shoot digitally.

Me, I just hope that as many titles are released on blu ray as possible before those days come.

I don't think whether consumers prefer downloads to physical media has anything to do with the industry push to shoot digitally over 35mm negative.

No one is forced to shoot digitally (aside from budgetary constraints). Many films are still shot on 35mm. If Kodak stops making negative movie film, that might change, but as of right now, there's no problem. Kodak still makes 4 color (Vision 3 at 500T, 200T, 250D and 50D) negative films, 1 black and white (Double-x at 200T/250D) and 1 black and white reversal film (Tri-X at 160T/200D).

Hugo was shot digitally because it was 3D. According to Wiki, Scorsese's next film, "The Wolf of Wall Street", had its brightly lit scenes shot on 35mm and the low-light scenes shot digitally.

Scorsese is heavily involved in preserving films that have deteriorated and haven't yet been preserved. That's different than trying to keep shooting on film rather than digitally. Scorsese's supposedly been fighting that battle as well, but aside from film stock costs, I'm not sure why a studio would care.

And as far as filmmaking is concerned, "Hugo" looked absolutely beautiful: there was no loss of texture or warmth because it was shot digitally. If it weren't for the lack of dirt and scratches, no one would ever be able to tell it was shot digitally. Not everyone has that skill - some digitally shot films look terrible, but Scorsese and cinematographer Robert Richardson obviously knew what they were doing.

And by the way, for those of you who might find themselves in the NYC area in the coming weeks, MOMA has an exhibit of the work of art director Dante Ferretti, including a full-size model of the clock used in Hugo. The exhibit includes numerous large paintings of his designs.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by vargo

If there are no more physical formats, then eventually digitally delivered content will be higher quality. All the improvements in the future (in the areas of resolution, color, framerate, compression etc) would be exclusive to digital distribution.

The problem is that those who are responsible for making the decisions about quality are not the same people/companies who make the decisions about the infrastructure needed to support it. Most Americans do not have very high speed connections as compared to many other places in the world. And the current phone and cable companies who provide the majority of internet service in this country don't want to make the capital investment to improve those speeds greatly unless they can see a clear return on investment.

In many other countries, such infrastructure is government driven.

In fact, one thing that might save physical media is the fact that internet connections in the U.S. are relatively slow, especially for low compression, 4K downloads. So as usual, we should be careful what we wish for.

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

I don't think whether consumers prefer downloads to physical media has anything to do with the industry push to shoot digitally over 35mm negative.

No one is forced to shoot digitally (aside from budgetary constraints). Many films are still shot on 35mm. If Kodak stops making negative movie film, that might change, but as of right now, there's no problem. Kodak still makes 4 color (Vision 3 at 500T, 200T, 250D and 50D) negative films, 1 black and white (Double-x at 200T/250D) and 1 black and white reversal film (Tri-X at 160T/200D).

Hugo was shot digitally because it was 3D. According to Wiki, Scorsese's next film, "The Wolf of Wall Street", had its brightly lit scenes shot on 35mm and the low-light scenes shot digitally.

Scorsese is heavily involved in preserving films that have deteriorated and haven't yet been preserved. That's different than trying to keep shooting on film rather than digitally. Scorsese's supposedly been fighting that battle as well, but aside from film stock costs, I'm not sure why a studio would care.

And as far as filmmaking is concerned, "Hugo" looked absolutely beautiful: there was no loss of texture or warmth because it was shot digitally. If it weren't for the lack of dirt and scratches, no one would ever be able to tell it was shot digitally. Not everyone has that skill - some digitally shot films look terrible, but Scorsese and cinematographer Robert Richardson obviously knew what they were doing.

And by the way, for those of you who might find themselves in the NYC area in the coming weeks, MOMA has an exhibit of the work of art director Dante Ferretti, including a full-size model of the clock used in Hugo. The exhibit includes numerous large paintings of his designs.

Funny you should mention wikipedia, because this is what it says on the movie's wikipedia page:

Scorsese's longtime editor Thelma Schoonmaker confessed that the film would be shot digitally instead of on film.[25] Scorsese, who had been a proponent of shooting on film, decided to shoot Hugo digitally because it was being filmed in 3D; however, The Wolf of Wall Street will be shot digitally despite being filmed in 2D. Schoonmaker expressed her disappointment with the decision, saying, "It would appear that we've lost the battle. I think Marty just feels it's unfortunately over, and there's been no bigger champion of film than him."[25] However, the majority was shot on film while the scenes with low lighting were shot with the Arri Alexa.[26]

First it was "We shot Hugo digitally because it was 3D, we had to". And now they're forced to shoot a 2D movie digitally. Yeah, in this case some scenes are still shot on film, but it's obvious in what direction things are moving in. Everything is becoming digital, unfortunately.

[krazeyeyez]

watched an interesting documentary on Netflix a few weeks back called "side by side". Its about digital vs film. I could have sworn it was scorsece who was talking about how he didn't like digital at first but not having to wait a day to see what they shot that day to come back and the unknown of whether it was usable was of great appeal to him. He also talked about the time limitations .. like only a limited amount of film is loaded and just how long the reload process takes can make him miss when actors hit it.

[mredman]

there is NO losing war physical media will always exist. Its also the thing the studio earn the most on by far.

If there was only streaming or download it would be a losing battle for the studios because they would lose billions on that because most people would just optain their movies illegally and the studios will never be able to stop piracy because it would then get unstoppable and bigger than ever. Not many are gonna get their movies legally through download or streaming when they can get it the same illegally on the net.

this thread is just ridiculous imo.

[krazeyeyez]

Originally Posted by mredman

there is NO losing war physical media will always exist. Its also the thing the studio earn the most on by far.

If there was only streaming or download it would be a losing battle for the studios because they would lose billions on that because most people would just optain their movies illegally and the studios will never be able to stop piracy because it would then get unstoppable and bigger than ever. Not many are gonna get their movies legally through download or streaming when they can get it the same illegally on the net.

this thread is just ridiculous imo.

I agree optical isn't going anywhere and I'm happy about that. But I have seen the bolded mentioned on here and don't understand where that comes from. Why wod streaming effect illegal piracy in any way?

[turetzeddie]

Originally Posted by cvm

The World is ending in 2012 anyway. I doubt blu-ray will be over taken before then.

It's 2013 and we'll still alive. Let's continue this conversation.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by mredman

there is NO losing war physical media will always exist. Its also the thing the studio earn the most on by far.

If there was only streaming or download it would be a losing battle for the studios because they would lose billions on that because most people would just optain their movies illegally and the studios will never be able to stop piracy because it would then get unstoppable and bigger than ever. Not many are gonna get their movies legally through download or streaming when they can get it the same illegally on the net.

this thread is just ridiculous imo.

It isn't ridiculous, it is a real threat. Retail stores are stocking less and less optical discs IMO and just last week a major UK store announced it would no longer sell blurays and dvd online. Pretty soon, we will only have Amazon as an option, what happens if they stop selling bluray? I also believe, the rental market will be all streaming in less than five years. Blurays will survive, I hope. The collectors need to stop embracing streaming though, in my opinion. At the moment it is a best of both worlds situation, but what will not be the case in the future.