Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by 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.

Blu-ray doesn't automatically mean high quality unfortunately. There are blu-rays out there with bitrate as low as 11-15mbps average. Now add DNR, color timing issues, old masters, poor compression, wrong black levels, aliasing, etc.

Blu-ray at it's best is certainly better than streaming currently. Even the best streaming. But there are tons of blu-rays that fall far short of what the format is capable of. We've all seen some really lousy blu-rays out there. Even recent blu-rays. Even 4k scans are not a guarantee of quality if the authoring is subpar.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by mar3o

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.

Now, I agree with you there. Amazon with their HD titles and VUDU with their HDX titles look much better than any of the competition, but I think they are still well below a proper BD transfer. There's also the other stuff like the lack of lossless audio and extras.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by mar3o

Blu-ray doesn't automatically mean high quality unfortunately. There are blu-rays out there with bitrate as low as 11-15mbps average. Now add DNR, color timing issues, old masters, poor compression, wrong black levels, aliasing, etc.

Blu-ray at it's best is certainly better than streaming currently. Even the best streaming. But there are tons of blu-rays that fall far short of what the format is capable of. We've all seen some really lousy blu-rays out there. Even recent blu-rays. Even 4k scans are not a guarantee of quality if the authoring is subpar.

That's true. Troy and Constantine come to mind as far as low bitrates go and yet they still look miles better than their DVD counterparts.

[StingingVelvet]

I mean even if streaming matches BD quality someday I would still get a BD so I truly own it and for the extras. The only thing that would make me switch to "digital" would be BD quality downloads with no DRM and all the old extras included, plus HDD prices would have to plummet. I don't see any of that happening.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

I mean even if streaming matches BD quality someday I would still get a BD so I truly own it and for the extras. The only thing that would make me switch to "digital" would be BD quality downloads with no DRM and all the old extras included, plus HDD prices would have to plummet. I don't see any of that happening.

Every piece of pre-recorded video media since DVD has had some form of DRM.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Every piece of pre-recorded video media since DVD has had some form of DRM.

I really can't do the whole copy protection vs. DRM semantic argument again. I don't need to contact a specific corporate server to play my blu-rays, which is what I mean.

[GasmaskAvenger]

I also agree that even at low bitrates, 1080p HD still looks better than 480p SD.

[PenguinMaster]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

I really can't do the whole copy protection vs. DRM semantic argument again. I don't need to contact a specific corporate server to play my blu-rays, which is what I mean.

I hate it when copy protection and DRM are lumped together as well. Now I always say "online DRM" so there's no confusion.

[Steedeel]

I'm surprised more people haven't discussed the 5g point I brought up. With such high speeds it has the potential to replace fibre and force more people to become mobile only households. That is a aspect of Digital and streaming that people are ignoring at the moment. It will be much cheaper having a mobile contract only. The casuals (the majority) may just save the Money and watch all their HBO, Netflix etc.. On their phone or phablet. I guess if this happened they would probably offer tie-in deals where you can get so many hours of free streaming per month before the data allowance cuts in. This will be worrying I think. It will force the issue for many. The only possible way around it I think is to offer some sort of service for the tv where one can stream to their tv from their device using a 5g router for extra. Will they pay though? I doubt it. This needs discussing as it is the most pressing issue for I think for the future of our home cinema.

Please, serious discussion, no gifs, etc..

[Arch Stanton]

Originally Posted by mar3o

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.

I've had a ton of problems with Amazon movie streaming for some reason. Their TV streaming is great, but every film I've tried to watch has been absolutely horrific. One of them was Vera Drake, so fair enough perhaps it has no HD master, but the other was Inside Llewyn Davis and it was not even DVD quality. I'm not sure what's going on there...

I hardly use it anyway so it's no loss. No problem with Netflix.

[ZeTi]

More afraid that people are getting lazy or content with the movies that are available from their streaming provider and curiosity starts to die.

Last time my cousin was here he said, regarding my foreign titles, that if those were good movies they surely would have been (dubbed and) available here as well.

[tenia]

Originally Posted by ZeTi

More afraid that people are getting lazy or content with the movies that are available from their streaming provider and curiosity starts to die.

I'm not sure.

Curiosity is to try things we don't know about. Whether it's what's available here or there (being on BD, DVD, streaming, whatever) won't change our deep curiosity (ie trying that movie I don't know stuff about just 'cause or sticking to the latest blockbuster).

[WhySoBlu?]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

[Show spoiler]I'm surprised more people haven't discussed the 5g point I brought up. With such high speeds it has the potential to replace fibre and force more people to become mobile only households. That is a aspect of Digital and streaming that people are ignoring at the moment. It will be much cheaper having a mobile contract only. The casuals (the majority) may just save the Money and watch all their HBO, Netflix etc.. On their phone or phablet. I guess if this happened they would probably offer tie-in deals where you can get so many hours of free streaming per month before the data allowance cuts in. This will be worrying I think. It will force the issue for many. The only possible way around it I think is to offer some sort of service for the tv where one can stream to their tv from their device using a 5g router for extra. Will they pay though? I doubt it. This needs discussing as it is the most pressing issue for I think for the future of our home cinema.

Please, serious discussion, no gifs, etc..

I know I'm wasting my time, but in addition to everything else that's been pointed out to you, are you aware of tethering? Just because someone's using their phone's internet does not mean they're using their phone to watch the content.

Regardless, you're still cherry-picking the data, removing all context in order to make things seem far more dire than they really are...

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by WhySoBlu?

I know I'm wasting my time, but in addition to everything else that's been pointed out to you, are you aware of tethering? Just because someone's using their phone's internet does not mean they're using their phone to watch the content.

Regardless, you're still cherry-picking the data, removing all context in order to make things seem far more dire than they really are...

Ok, try this. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04...ow_mobileonly/

Where is the hope in this article? That's quite a shift for a small amount of time (three years)

[master gandhi]

Originally Posted by WhySoBlu?

I know I'm wasting my time, but in addition to everything else that's been pointed out to you, are you aware of tethering? Just because someone's using their phone's internet does not mean they're using their phone to watch the content.

Regardless, you're still cherry-picking the data, removing all context in order to make things seem far more dire than they really are...

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Ok, try this. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04...ow_mobileonly/

Where is the hope in this article? That's quite a shift for a small amount of time (three years)

You ignored WhySoBlu?s point, and just decided to post another article that doesn't explain if people are tethering or not. In fact, the article states that people are "using a wider range of computing devices in their daily lives." But according to you, they're just using their phones. Does the article contradict your argument?

It still supports the argument that lower-income households are the ones dropping ISPs, and the majority of people still have internet. People are trying to cut corners when they don't think they can afford both their mobile plan and internet service.

Plus, since they're trying to save money, they probably won't be doing a lot of streaming on their mobile plan. Like others have pointed out, high-speed data doesn't come cheap. My wife and I use around 100 gigs/month on our home internet. If we went mobile-only, we'd have to watch a lot less online content.

You would likely see a rise of physical media in a world where people have dropped ISPs, unless the mobile providers give you unlimited high-speed data, which will likely never happen. There's a lot of variables to consider. It's more complicated than you make it seem IMO.

[WhySoBlu?]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Ok, try this. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04...ow_mobileonly/

Where is the hope in this article? That's quite a shift for a small amount of time (three years)

You didn't even address my point about tethering, so why would I bother responding to anything in that six-month old article? Nothing I - or anyone else here - say will ever even begin to change your mind, so what's the point? I should have just ignored your post like everyone else did - it was foolish to think I could reason with you about this obsession of yours. By all means, carry on.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by master gandhi

You ignored WhySoBlu?s point, and just decided to post another article that doesn't explain if people are tethering or not. In fact, the article states that people are "using a wider range of computing devices in their daily lives." But according to you, they're just using their phones. Does the article contradict your argument?

It still supports the argument that lower-income households are the ones dropping ISPs, and the majority of people still have internet. People are trying to cut corners when they don't think they can afford both their mobile plan and internet service.

Plus, since they're trying to save money, they probably won't be doing a lot of streaming on their mobile plan. Like others have pointed out, high-speed data doesn't come cheap. My wife and I use around 100 gigs/month on our home internet. If we went mobile-only, we'd have to watch a lot less online content.

You would likely see a rise of physical media in a world where people have dropped ISPs, unless the mobile providers give you unlimited high-speed data, which will likely never happen. There's a lot of variables to consider. It's more complicated than you make it seem IMO.

I didn't ignore it but tethering is never going to be a solution for home cinema is it? Let's face it. That's just clutching at straws.

A 10% increase in two years is some jump and that's before we get to 5g. A 7% decrease in broadband homes is also significant. Especially in just 2 years.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by WhySoBlu?

You didn't even address my point about tethering, so why would I bother responding to anything in that six-month old article? Nothing I - or anyone else here - say will ever even begin to change your mind, so what's the point? I should have just ignored your post like everyone else did - it was foolish to think I could reason with you about this obsession of yours. By all means, carry on.

I don't believe for a second, tethering is a priority for those people. It's a really naff way of doing things and has no place in a future home cinema scenario.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by WhySoBlu?

You didn't even address my point about tethering, so why would I bother responding to anything in that six-month old article? Nothing I - or anyone else here - say will ever even begin to change your mind, so what's the point? I should have just ignored your post like everyone else did - it was foolish to think I could reason with you about this obsession of yours. By all means, carry on.

My point is those jumps are significant. 10 percent rise in mobile only homes in just 2 years. A 7% drop in broadband homes in just 2 years. There is trouble ahead, it's obvious.

Apologies for that by the way. It was rude of me. I jumped ahead with my eagerness to share the article.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by Arch Stanton

I've had a ton of problems with Amazon movie streaming for some reason. Their TV streaming is great, but every film I've tried to watch has been absolutely horrific. One of them was Vera Drake, so fair enough perhaps it has no HD master, but the other was Inside Llewyn Davis and it was not even DVD quality. I'm not sure what's going on there...

I hardly use it anyway so it's no loss. No problem with Netflix.

So you're basing you're opinion on Amazon's film streaming based on 2 films, one of which may not have had an HD master?