Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[ElvisForever]

I am new to this discussion, but are people really trying to pretend the renters market hasn't always been there?

%buyers to renters has never been this strong (when there was a rental opportunity). Back in the days of VHS people weren't buying movies at all (relative to rental sales) because price of VHS was out of this world. This is the early says people.

The renters have always came first with film media and that goes back to people paying for tickets to see a movie.

All this talk about the sky is falling because of the enormous popularity of DVD of the past, is completely ignoring the fact that most of those buyers were fair weather renters to begin with.

Bluray's future is going just fine when you get rid of the fly by night supporters that only skewed perception of what a real collector is willing to pay for quality.

DVD was crap ass mp3 quality sound with compressed to hell video to go with it. A DVD can't even properly transfer a VHS source because of the low storage capacity (that is bit rate of analog approximation not resolution, pay close attention).

Anyway, just my take. I loved Laserdisc and never saw a proper upgrade until bluray. I am enjoyong this time for collecting and Netflix crap quality will never compare.

Renters are important. The world needs guinea pigs/sheep. I prefer to trust scholar/artist perception than see a movie after I have sifted through reviews and proper commentary vs the couch potato that is scrolling through the latest unwritten tv series and pretending it is anywhere near the quality of a well made movie.

[spawningblue]

Originally Posted by bigshot

Oh man! You don't judge by the handful of blockbusters that are in the theaters now. You judge by the deep catalog. Netflix isn't perfect, but for a true cinephile, there is plenty there to mine.

I'd venture to say that Netflix is *the* venue for documentary and independent films. And that is some of the most exciting stuff being made today.

Not in Canada it doesn't. I heard the UK selection is pretty terrible as well. Netflix US is apparently the only service that offers a decent catalog of titles.

Originally Posted by Rich1631

Not into the indie/documentary scene, but Netflix doesn't even have big name blockbusters from like 5 years back. And they seem more interested in original programming in the last 2 years, that it is becoming more along the lines of HBO.

I agree, Netflix is all about TV and documentaries. Their movie selection is abysmal, and any movie fan that only uses Netflix for their film watching is not a movie at all.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by ElvisForever

DVD was crap ass mp3 quality sound with compressed to hell video to go with it. A DVD can't even properly transfer a VHS source because of the low storage capacity (that is bit rate of analog approximation not resolution, pay close attention).

There's so much misinformation here.


DVD uses component video and the visual fidelity is far beyond the capability of VHS and much more than LaserDisc.


"Bit rate" does not apply to analog sources!


Dolby Digital and DTS have much higher capability and fidelity than MP3.

[ElvisForever]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

There's so much misinformation here.


DVD uses component video and the visual fidelity is far beyond the capability of VHS and much more than LaserDisc.


"Bit rate" does not apply to analog sources!


Dolby Digital and DTS have much higher capability and fidelity than MP3.

Look, I don't plan on getting into a big debate, but I think you are seriously distorting my post.

I stated the bit rate of the transfer cannot do VHS justice because of the limited storage capacity. As for which is better, it depends on the source. If you are talking about natively capturing something digital, of course a DVD could be better, but if you are talking about something that was orginally an analog source and the DVD is used to recapture it, sorry, but I gotta disagree with that one. Look at any VHS that was ported to DVD to get my drift. DVD does not have enough space, and it is painfully obvious.

If we are talking about a 30 minute clip than you might have me. Even then it depends on which Video tape source we are talking about. You need at least 20 gig for a 2 hour length to get anywhere close to what the analog source spits out.

As for MP3 crap quality. Actually I will go one better. Not only are many bit rates extremely low and badly compressed, but it is spread out over 5 channels!

So which would your rather have, a uncompressed stereo analog sound, or a less than mp3 approximation (that is if you are comparing channels)?

Dolby Digital is garbage, and is nothing compared with the original LD uncompressed surround sound. Thankfully bluray has trumped this, but you saying this is "misinformation", well that is ok. We can agree to disagree.

You are the first person that I have ever known that would make the argument for compressed sound being less than fully uncompressed analog goodness. Video tape has lots of problems, but in thousands (millions?) of cases, it is simply the best we got, and I to wave a DVD flag as the way to capture it is not understanding its limitations.

[50strat54]

Originally Posted by bigshot

Blockbusters are easy to still get for under $10 on blu-ray. That is the stuff that still sells. The advantage of Netflix is the deep catalog.

My deep catalog is in my garage [DVDs, some VHS and music] and spare bedroom [blurays and music]

The only advantage I can see to subscribing to Netflix is their original programming. I'm not a subscriber so I'll buy any show I'm interested in on bluray, especially the Marvel shows they have.

This year I scored with all of the Netflix Emmy consideration box sets. There were four boxes and I got them all at various stores in LA and they were cheap too, like $1 to $2 per disc. They were all DVD which is fine but no emmy consideration crawls and 95% were full seasons. I was especially happy to get Jessica Jones and Daredevil Season 2. And I loved Kimmy Schmidt!

[happydood]

I think a lot of us who collect classic films pre 1980 can forget that film is a really young medium in the grand scheme of things. Most people are going to eventually treat the earlier movies the way they do classical or jazz or blues music and pre 20th century lit. They'll still be there but be relegated to high-brow/pedestal status even though they're still totally accessible for anybody who is curious and will bother to put them into context. I'm confident there will always be a type of soul who wants to engage in the whole line of human expression- plenty of us weirdos are on here right now and the boutique labels are now catering to us.

But popular sites like netflix are going to go the way of American Movie Classics as another generation starts deciding how entertainment money is spent.

[master gandhi]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I think it depends on what Amazon does. At the moment Amazon Instant is a complete mess. It is unclear what is prime and what is available for rent or to buy. I think they need to split into two with a dedicated movie rental/buying storefront and then Amazon Instant. (As a disclaimer, my girlfriend has it, I do not lol)

I can see Netflix going that route as they wont want to concede that market. They will probably wait a couple of years until things have settled down.

But they have the little "Prime" tag in the thumbnail pic when you're in the video app. Seems easy to spot for me. I think it's neat that they let you access Prime titles in the same app as your purchased titles. It just sucks when you go to your watchlist and there are titles in there without the Prime tag, so you need to remove them, whereas on Netflix and Hulu, you just wouldn't see them listed anymore.

I'm not sure how Netflix would label their subscription titles to differentiate from purchased titles, if they ever entered that market. They'd probably do alright selling movies on their app, since almost everyone uses Netflix. Also, I think someone could use the Amazon Video app even if they aren't a Prime member. They just would only see their purchased titles, I'd imagine. Not sure how that would work on Netflix.

What Amazon really needs to do is add special features to purchased titles that cannot be accessed on the subscription versions. That would give people an extra incentive to purchase titles even if they're included with Prime. Otherwise, you're getting the exact same thing, whether you own it or not. You just don't have to worry about it being taken down from Prime, that's all purchasing gets you now.

[bigshot]

Originally Posted by 50strat54

This year I scored with all of the Netflix Emmy consideration box sets.

I'm a member of the Academy and I get all those boxes. It isn't just Netflix. Every network puts them out. Every year I try to watch them and suffer through an episode here and there. But most of it is so derivative- well made, but ordinary. Occasionally I run across something with a vision behind it and it gives me something to vote for. But I use my personal Netflix account mostly for documentaries and legacy movies. There's a lot more variety there.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by master gandhi

But they have the little "Prime" tag in the thumbnail pic when you're in the video app. Seems easy to spot for me. I think it's neat that they let you access Prime titles in the same app as your purchased titles. It just sucks when you go to your watchlist and there are titles in there without the Prime tag, so you need to remove them, whereas on Netflix and Hulu, you just wouldn't see them listed anymore.

I'm not sure how Netflix would label their subscription titles to differentiate from purchased titles, if they ever entered that market. They'd probably do alright selling movies on their app, since almost everyone uses Netflix. Also, I think someone could use the Amazon Video app even if they aren't a Prime member. They just would only see their purchased titles, I'd imagine. Not sure how that would work on Netflix.

What Amazon really needs to do is add special features to purchased titles that cannot be accessed on the subscription versions. That would give people an extra incentive to purchase titles even if they're included with Prime. Otherwise, you're getting the exact same thing, whether you own it or not. You just don't have to worry about it being taken down from Prime, that's all purchasing gets you now.

It's real easy for someone to pick a film and the realise it's not on prime.

[BoogalooShrimp]

I love this thread. Keep it up guys.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by BoogalooShrimp

I love this thread. Keep it up guys.

Why don't you contribute rather than making IMO, jerk commnts?

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by ElvisForever

I stated the bit rate of the transfer cannot do VHS justice because of the limited storage capacity. As for which is better, it depends on the source. If you are talking about natively capturing something digital, of course a DVD could be better, but if you are talking about something that was orginally an analog source and the DVD is used to recapture it, sorry, but I gotta disagree with that one. Look at any VHS that was ported to DVD to get my drift. DVD does not have enough space, and it is painfully obvious.

Film is an "analog" medium. As for analog videotape sources look at TV programs from the 60s to the 90s on DVD, they are much better looking than VHS. You're not just talking resolution limit, you are also forgetting color fidelity. Do some research about the "color under" technique VHS had to use. The best VHS signals are actually black & white because of this. Storage is irrelevant. VHS quality on DVD requires less than 7Mbps and since it's variable bit rate 2 hours can fit easily on a single layer.

Even then it depends on which Video tape source we are talking about. You need at least 20 gig for a 2 hour length to get anywhere close to what the analog source spits out.

HD analog maybe (from the 90s). You're talking VHS, remember?

MP3 crap quality. Actually I will go one better. Not only are many bit rates extremely low and badly compressed, but it is spread out over 5 channels!

Lossy codecs on DVD are extremely efficient and designed for low bitrates without compromising the fidelity of the signal. You need to stop using MP3 as a metric because audio codecs are different. At 192 or 256kbps AAC better than MP3 at 320kbps for example.

Dolby Digital is garbage, and is nothing compared with the original LD uncompressed surround sound.

Since I had LaserDisc (and still about 90 titles) I can say with certainty DVD did not sound like garbage. Not to mention several DVD titles used PCM stereo sound, especially music video titles.

You are the first person that I have ever known that would make the argument for compressed sound being less than fully uncompressed analog goodness. Video tape has lots of problems, but in thousands (millions?) of cases, it is simply the best we got, and I to wave a DVD flag as the way to capture it is not understanding its limitations.

Head switching noise, tape hiss, etc. Not to mention if you wanted surround sound you lose the discrete surround and center channels.

[Steedeel]

Master Ghandi, sorry about my abrupt one sentence reply. I am having a mare with this site and my iPhone (I'm not at home) and I can't edit. I was going to go and say it is labelled but if one is scrolling from title to title and quickly browsing, it is a easy mistake to make. I can see a lot of new prime members falling into the trap of thinking son of the more modern films are on prime, especially when that list remains in your to watch list even when removed from Prime.

[BoogalooShrimp]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Why don't you contribute rather than making IMO, jerk commnts?

I contributed a few pages ago. I just think this is a good discussion.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by BoogalooShrimp

I contributed a few pages ago. I just think this is a good discussion.

My apologies. I thought you were being facetious.

Sorry again.

[50strat54]

Originally Posted by bigshot

I'm a member of the Academy and I get all those boxes. It isn't just Netflix. Every network puts them out. Every year I try to watch them and suffer through an episode here and there. But most of it is so derivative- well made, but ordinary. Occasionally I run across something with a vision behind it and it gives me something to vote for. But I use my personal Netflix account mostly for documentaries and legacy movies. There's a lot more variety there.

This is awards for television so you really don't need an emmy consideration crawl but some studios still put them in. For television there's no need for a crawl but that's only my opinion as a non-academy viewer

11/22/63 from Hulu had a crawl but Bosch from a couple of years ago from Amazon did not. Amazon put the entire season of Bosch on one disc, must have been really compressed but the picture is still decent.

[BoogalooShrimp]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

My apologies. I thought you were being facetious.

Sorry again.

It's all good. Back to the discussion.

I have discovered so many great films because of streaming. Movies i would never have watched otherwise. My process is normally this:

1. See something interesting on netflix.
2. Do an internet search and read about the fillm.
3. Decide whether or not its worth my time.

Back in the day all you had to go off of was the cover of the vhs box. This is a great time to be a film enthusiast. I'm toying with the idea of getting a front projector to replace my tv which would have been laughable 15 years ago.

[bigshot]

Originally Posted by 50strat54

This is awards for television so you really don't need an emmy consideration crawl but some studios still put them in.

For the past couple of years, the boxes have included info on where to log in to stream entire seasons. They even sent us a Google Chromecast stick to use. I tried to set mine up, but the damn thing somehow tried to grab my AVR when I was watching something else, so I unplugged it. I think the physical boxes are on their way to going the way of the dodo. But even so, my stack of DVD boxes gets about three feet high by the end of voting season. They sent out a couple of full seasons of shows in blu-ray this year. That was nice.

[master gandhi]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Master Ghandi, sorry about my abrupt one sentence reply. I am having a mare with this site and my iPhone (I'm not at home) and I can't edit. I was going to go and say it is labelled but if one is scrolling from title to title and quickly browsing, it is a easy mistake to make. I can see a lot of new prime members falling into the trap of thinking son of the more modern films are on prime, especially when that list remains in your to watch list even when removed from Prime.

No worries. You're right. It can be misleading to see a movie still in your watchlist even though it costs money to watch now. That's annoying. I'm actually surprised to see certain modern movies available, like Spectre and Mockingjay Part 2. But those were in theaters like a year ago. It's nice that The Neon Demon is on there now. I've yet to see it. I better jump on it before it goes away.

[ElvisForever]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Film is an "analog" medium. As for analog videotape sources look at TV programs from the 60s to the 90s on DVD, they are much better looking than VHS. You're not just talking resolution limit, you are also forgetting color fidelity. Do some research about the "color under" technique VHS had to use. The best VHS signals are actually black & white because of this. Storage is irrelevant. VHS quality on DVD requires less than 7Mbps and since it's variable bit rate 2 hours can fit easily on a single layer.

I don't know why you are pointing out that VHS is analog when I already said it, that is very insulting. 2 hours may fit on a DVD, but it will look like crap. You don't think so, then we can agree to disagree. DVD is inadequate.

Remember, DVD is able to store better resolution using compression. When you have something like VHS where there is all kinds of elements making that picture, yes that "color under" also needs to be recreated properly.

HD analog maybe (from the 90s). You're talking VHS, remember?

When did I say HD analog??????? Is this more of the insults.

Lossy codecs on DVD are extremely efficient and designed for low bitrates without compromising the fidelity of the signal. You need to stop using MP3 as a metric because audio codecs are different. At 192 or 256kbps AAC better than MP3 at 320kbps for example.

Actually I said MP3 quality which is referring to compressed vs uncompressed. Actually in many ways I think MP3 is superior because as I stated, you are not multiplying faults with tracks because they are compressed to hell.

Since I had LaserDisc (and still about 90 titles) I can say with certainty DVD did not sound like garbage. Not to mention several DVD titles used PCM stereo sound, especially music video titles.

Yes I too had hundreds of laserdiscs and spent a fortune on them. So lets get past that part, it has no bearing on the discussion.

For the PCM you might have a point. I wasn't attacking DVD as a disc persay, but rather what has been put on it using the standard. So lets move away from that part of the discussion immediately, nothing to do with the discussion. DVD is like CD or Bluray, it is just a storage medium. The difference is the space limitations on the STANDARD. If you want to get 15 minutes of high resolution encode, than yes it can get all a VHS tape can put out (well not actually, but beyond what the human eyes can see..and probably hear).

However, I cannot take anyone seriously that is saying that a DVD can get everything that is on a VHS in pure analog goodness for anything that has a length of time like a movie. No way, no how. To do that requires a crap ton more space. 4 gig is not enough.

Head switching noise, tape hiss, etc. Not to mention if you wanted surround sound you lose the discrete surround and center channels.

Lose? How do you figure? How do you lose what was never there to begin with? It was a matrixed channel, and some have argued that it blends better and is more natural. Discrete has actually altered the artist original intent in most cases of old films.

Obviously Video tape has its downfalls, but that is not my point. If I am going to pick between a digital pass, yes you have my vote completely. However, if you are going to make the argument that DVD is the best way to capture video tape you are dreaming.

Have you ever done a high encode using a bunch of hard drive space (I actually did a video tape using the highest bit rate with Pinacle possible at 30 gig)? The difference is night and day. Video is more than just resolution. DVD gets the superior quality by cutting corners. You can't do that with an analog source and I feel sorry for people that think you can.

Look you don't believe me, go to any transfer service and ask them why they put video tape sources on hard drives and blurays, or I can tell you now? ANALOG needs at least twice the resolution and space to capture the same quality. 1 pass is not going to cut it. 1 pixel on VHS is not 1 pixel on DVD, and why would anyone make that simple analogy? 7 mbps is truly laughable btw. I have captured at 18 mbps using firewire and the difference is amazing. I have old umatics and type C's. The differences are very sensitive and to trust that to a pitiful 4 gig space is again not understanding how transfers of analog material works.

To this day I just don't get people who will say there is nothing to gain by putting broadcast tape on bluray (like old 70's shows or Mr. Rogers..etc.). It just baffles my mind and how many people have no clue when it comes to the fact that yes even Chroma noise must be reproduced accurately to get the complete picture.