Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[flyry]

Originally Posted by bigshot

If I could own movies without having to fill my shelves with plastic boxes, I'd be happy to do that.

It's called VUDU

[octagon]

Originally Posted by happydood

Yes, but isn't replicating the theatrical experience the goal rather than turning a picture into something hyper-vibrant just because we can?

It's a goal but it's not the only goal. And resolutions beyond 4K aren't necessarily incompatible with that goal anyway. Even taking into account the resolution limits of film stock, higher resolution displays could allow for larger screens in the home that aren't subject to some of the limits we see with current display tech.

And again, there's really no downside. Not that I can see, anyway.

Film and filmmaking have gone through a lot of changes over the past century or so and it has yet to lose its essential magic. There's always some handwringing that the next round of technological developments will be the one to finally throw the baby out with the bathwater but I dunno, I'm pretty willing to roll those dice.

And it's not like I have a lot to say about it anyway so I might as well relax and enjoy the ride

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by flyry

It's called VUDU

Sure, if you want quality closer to an upconverted DVD.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Sure, if you want quality closer to an upconverted DVD.

It may not be Blu-ray but it is also certainly not "upconverted DVD" quality.

It's basically HD DVD quality if most of their movies had to fit on a 15GB single layered disc.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

It may not be Blu-ray but it is also certainly not "upconverted DVD" quality.

It's basically HD DVD quality if most of their movies had to fit on a 15GB single layered disc.

I guess we will agree to disagree on that one.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Yes but people didn't have 24 hour access to mobile screens.

In spite of everyone looking at their small screens and in spite of theater closings in expensive real-estate cities, the fact is that at least in the U.S., ticket sales have been pretty stable the last 30 years. They're more dependent upon whether movies are appealing to people (whether they're actually good or bad movies is not all that relevant) than anything else. While it would be logical to believe that the vast amount of media available to everyone today would negatively impact theater sales, the numbers don't seem to be saying that.

If you also consider that international box-office has increased substantially, especially China, and that home video, whether physical, streaming, cable licensing, etc., is also big business, the overall business is larger than it's been in a long time.

Now if you go back to the pre-TV days, it was a much larger business. 1946 was the peak year for the movie business in the U.S. While everyone assumes it was TV that killed it, U.S. box-office started dropping substantially in 1947 and 1948 before TV had much penetration. I would maintain that it was returning G.I.'s (and others) who moved to under-screened suburbs along with the decline of older cities that caused a substantial decline in admissions.

What's especially incredible about those 1946 numbers was that those 86 million weekly admissions in 1946 was based on a population of under 150 million. Today's 25.8 million weekly admissions is based on a population of over 315 million. But as we all know, there's far more competition for leisure time today.

U.S. ticket sales:
2015: 1.341 billion ($11.3 billion) 25.8 million weekly admissions
2014: 1.269 billion ($10.365 billion)
2013: 1.34 billion ($10.9 billion) 25.778 million weekly admissions.
2012: 1.39 billion ($11.074 billion)
2011: 1.28 billion ($10.14 billion)
2010: 1.328 billion ($10.477 billion) 25.54 million weekly admissions
2005: 1.393 billion ($8.929 billion)
2000: 1.388 billion ($7.48 billion)
1995: 1.216 billion ($5.291 billion) 23.393 million weekly admissions
1978: 23 million weekly admissions
1964: 20 million weekly admissions
1950: 50 million weekly admissions
1946: 4.472 billion ($1.692 billion) 86 million weekly admissions.

I don't have numbers for the UK, but if it's consistent with the above, I think you're upset without reason. Having said that, I've been in many empty theaters lately and in spite of some new theaters recently opening in NYC, since 2001 we've lost almost 17% of the screen count and almost 31% of the theater count. We've also lost about 7% of the seats just since last December, but that's as much due to theaters switching to lounge seating as it is about theaters closing.

I do think over time we're going to lose theaters. But they'll still always be a place to see a movie in a theater in most cities. There are cities that are over screened and there are cities that are under screened.

[WhySoBlu?]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Sure, if you want quality closer to an upconverted DVD.

This isn't 2007. As much as I love and prefer physical media, there's no way you can say that VUDU's HDX streams are in any way similar to upconverted DVD. Hell, Netflix has been better than that for years, let alone VUDU.

This isn't an "agree to disagree" type of situation. Opinions don't really factor into this. Objectively speaking, the picture quality of those streams is higher than the quality of an upconverted DVD. If you're not getting those results, either your hardware, internet connection, or eyesight are to blame.

Again, this is coming from a staunch physical media supporter. It is what it is - there's no reason to misrepresent the current situation.

[flyry]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Sure, if you want quality closer to an upconverted DVD.

Oh please.

Listen I love physical media too but some of you anti streaming posters are so hyperbolic that it's comical.

I suppose you think Netflix 4K and HDR streaming look worse than blu's too?

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by flyry

Oh please.

Listen I love physical media too but some of you anti streaming posters are so hyperbolic that it's comical.

I suppose you think Netflix 4K and HDR streaming look worse than blu's too?

Without any doubt, yes. 4K Netflix looks good but it doesn't have the texture or consistency of a well authored Bluray.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

In spite of everyone looking at their small screens and in spite of theater closings in expensive real-estate cities, the fact is that at least in the U.S., ticket sales have been pretty stable the last 30 years. They're more dependent upon whether movies are appealing to people (whether they're actually good or bad movies is not all that relevant) than anything else. While it would be logical to believe that the vast amount of media available to everyone today would negatively impact theater sales, the numbers don't seem to be saying that.

If you also consider that international box-office has increased substantially, especially China, and that home video, whether physical, streaming, cable licensing, etc., is also big business, the overall business is larger than it's been in a long time.

Now if you go back to the pre-TV days, it was a much larger business. 1946 was the peak year for the movie business in the U.S. While everyone assumes it was TV that killed it, U.S. box-office started dropping substantially in 1947 and 1948 before TV had much penetration. I would maintain that it was returning G.I.'s (and others) who moved to under-screened suburbs along with the decline of older cities that caused a substantial decline in admissions.

What's especially incredible about those 1946 numbers was that those 86 million weekly admissions in 1946 was based on a population of under 150 million. Today's 25.8 million weekly admissions is based on a population of over 315 million. But as we all know, there's far more competition for leisure time today.

U.S. ticket sales:
2015: 1.341 billion ($11.3 billion) 25.8 million weekly admissions
2014: 1.269 billion ($10.365 billion)
2013: 1.34 billion ($10.9 billion) 25.778 million weekly admissions.
2012: 1.39 billion ($11.074 billion)
2011: 1.28 billion ($10.14 billion)
2010: 1.328 billion ($10.477 billion) 25.54 million weekly admissions
2005: 1.393 billion ($8.929 billion)
2000: 1.388 billion ($7.48 billion)
1995: 1.216 billion ($5.291 billion) 23.393 million weekly admissions
1978: 23 million weekly admissions
1964: 20 million weekly admissions
1950: 50 million weekly admissions
1946: 4.472 billion ($1.692 billion) 86 million weekly admissions.

I don't have numbers for the UK, but if it's consistent with the above, I think you're upset without reason. Having said that, I've been in many empty theaters lately and in spite of some new theaters recently opening in NYC, since 2001 we've lost almost 17% of the screen count and almost 31% of the theater count. We've also lost about 7% of the seats just since last December, but that's as much due to theaters switching to lounge seating as it is about theaters closing.

I do think over time we're going to lose theaters. But they'll still always be a place to see a movie in a theater in most cities. There are cities that are over screened and there are cities that are under screened.

It's not the cinema I'm concerned about, it's my own private cinema lol.

Thanks for the post though, good read.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by flyry

I suppose you think Netflix 4K and HDR streaming look worse than blu's too?

4k resolution improvements are probably a lot less noticeable than the compression of a stream, actually. Daredevil on Netflix having significant compression in dark scenes is a big reason I am getting the BD. HDR is a whole other matter.

[flyry]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

4k resolution improvements are probably a lot less noticeable than the compression of a stream, actually. Daredevil on Netflix having significant compression in dark scenes is a big reason I am getting the BD. HDR is a whole other matter.

They changed Daredevil from 4K to HDR a few weeks ago.

Luke Cage looked absolutely fantastic in 4K

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by flyry

They changed Daredevil from 4K to HDR a few weeks ago.

Luke Cage looked absolutely fantastic in 4K

I'm just saying if it has any compression artifacts, which I am sure it does, I would rather watch the blu-ray.

[bigshot]

Originally Posted by WhySoBlu?

This isn't 2007. As much as I love and prefer physical media, there's no way you can say that VUDU's HDX streams are in any way similar to upconverted DVD. Hell, Netflix has been better than that for years, let alone VUDU.

Some people don't know what streaming is capable of because of local speed logjams with their internet provider. I live near a main internet hub and it's great. It might not be as great in the middle of Montana. It will be great everywhere eventually though.

[YodasFootPowder]

Streaming looks great in a lot of places and even where it doesn't, still looks damn good. But, that still doesn't give me an object in my possession which can never be taken away. Netflix, Hulu, and any places where you buy digitally can change what they offer, change terms of service or go out of business, whenever, so I will always want physical media. I can't count how many things I used to have in my list on Netflix that have gone away over the years and are no longer available to watch... No such problem when I look up at my Bluray shelf. Now, certainly, there's tons of people out there that don't give a sh!t about such a thing, but I sure do.

It's funny, most of my friends don't buy media like I do and kind of act like I'm weird for it. Then, those same friends will be the first to say "I went to watch such and such show or movie the other day on Netflix and they took it off the service. Can you believe that?!". Yeah, actually, I can. LOL!

[PenguinMaster]

Originally Posted by YodasFootPowder

Streaming looks great in a lot of places and even where it doesn't, still looks damn good. But, that still doesn't give me an object in my possession which can never be taken away. Netflix, Hulu, and any places where you buy digitally can change what they offer, change terms of service or go out of business, whenever, so I will always want physical media. I can't count how many things I used to have in my list on Netflix that have gone away over the years and are no longer available to watch... No such problem when I look up at my Bluray shelf. Now, certainly, there's tons of people out there that don't give a sh!t about such a thing, but I sure do.

It's funny, most of my friends don't buy media like I do and kind of act like I'm weird for it. Then, those same friends will be the first to say "I went to watch such and such show or movie the other day on Netflix and they took it off the service. Can you believe that?!". Yeah, actually, I can. LOL!

That's my attitude as well. Even if digital has superior picture and audio quality to physical it will always be an inferior choice due to the lack of control that customers have over their purchases. The studios can't ever do anything to prevent me from watching my discs nor from buying or selling existing used discs. But anything that's available as streaming or download can disappear at any time.

With digital the availability of each title lies with the one company who owns the rights. With physical the availability of each title lies with the thousands of people who own a disc.

[AnamorphicWidescreen]

AFAIC, it will be a long time before streaming is as good as Blu-ray quality. And, I'm not anti-streaming at all.

For example, I recently finished watching series 1-2 of The Fall on Blu-ray - great series (but that's another thread).

I'm now streaming Series 3 - and, while the PQ is decent, it's not nearly as good as Blu quality.

That being said, yes, I have seen many streams that are superior to regular DVD quality.

[StingingVelvet]

To be clear I think it is amazing how good Netflix and Vudu look, considering what they are doing. I often get brief drops in quality and you can see compression in fast-moving and dark scenes, but it's still an amazing quality service when you consider they're streaming millions of things at any one time. Amazon streaming tends to suck, in my experience though.

Still, despite how amazing that is, I think it's still super obvious blu-ray looks much, much better.

[flyry]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

To be clear I think it is amazing how good Netflix and Vudu look, considering what they are doing. I often get brief drops in quality and you can see compression in fast-moving and dark scenes, but it's still an amazing quality service when you consider they're streaming millions of things at any one time. Amazon streaming tends to suck, in my experience though.

Still, despite how amazing that is, I think it's still super obvious blu-ray looks much, much better.

My setup is wired. At least on the TV i use most and the only time I experience these issues is maybe the first 15 sec or so when playing something on Amazon.

My experience with all the 4K netflix originals has been superb so far.

I half wish Vudu would stop being selective with which devices you can purchase UHD titles on after the fiasco many of us are experiencing with the 4K disc of Crouching tiger.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

I guess we will agree to disagree on that one.

Amazon's streaming HD movies now hit around 12-15mbps for 1080p. That's darned good for streaming and most people would have no issue with that kind of quality. It's far better than itunes' weak 3-4mbps. Amazon's HD streaming looks far better than DVD.