Physical & Digital EST: The Future of Home Video Discussion Thread

[veritas]

Originally Posted by Vor4

$9.99 is what most people want to pay for a 4k digital movie. I think its a good price for a 4k movie. The studios don't want 4k movie downloads yet due to large file size on 4k movies and piracy.

You don't even own a 4k tv, so why does that matter to you if the digital version only redeems in hd from the 4k disc. Would you rather spend $20 on the blu-ray version, redeem the code, watch one time and sell the disc for about $3 after selling fees. Or would you rather spend $25 on the 4k disc version, redeem the code, watch one time, then sell the disc for $6 after selling fees.

I prefer buy it for 2 to 6 dollars and theirs like an 80% chance the digital copy is still good anyway ( statistically almost nobody uses those digital copy slips). I mean whenever you sell a movie for nothing that means somebody gets to buy a movie for nothing. I have literally bought movies used multiple times to get a digital copy because its cheaper then buying the movie new or buying the digital copy alone.

[alchav21]

Originally Posted by alchav21

I guess you have never looked at a Disc or done any Back-ups, the Files and Bit Streaming are the same. Those same Files I put on a Back-up Disc or Network Server were the same. A Player Reads and Bit Streams the same from a Disc or a Server. The Codec used now is based on H.265, and with Adaptive Bitrate can start off in a lower Resolution and go up according to your Bandwidth. So a Streaming Provider like Sony Ultra that has all their Movies in 4K, goes up from SD, through HD+HDR, to 4K+HDR. According to your Bandwidth and Movie Resolution. Same Codec, but the Quality goes up according to your Bandwidth so if you have 50+Mbps your HD Movies will be Blu-ray Disc Quality easily. I'm saying the other 4K Providers will do the same.

Originally Posted by Vilya

I understand that you think everything expressed in binary code is the same thing because it is "digital." You probably think everything ever written in English is the same thing because it uses the English alphabet.

"A Player Reads and Bit Streams the same from a Disc or a Server." -alchav21

A disc player operates entirely different when playing a disc than how streaming from a server is realized and you are the ONLY one who can not see that. The files present on a disc are different than those accessed over the internet from a streaming service, but a player does not, and can not, read and transfer data from a disc in the same manner as a device using a remote connection to a server via the internet does. I am pretty sure streaming devices do not need a laser to accomplish their task. Data is transferred in both cases, but there is nothing the same about how it happens or even how it is decoded. I would provide you with the definition of the word "same", but it would be pointless. Maybe an equation? Same=identical. Disc players accomplish their disc playing function entirely different than how data is acquired, and utilized, from a server via an internet connection.

Sure, theoretically, files on a disc and a server could be the same, but the reality is that the files you get from a subscription streaming service, or a digital sell thru provider, are different than those present on a disc. How that data is transferred and processed is completely different. Completely different means they are NOT the same, even partially different means they are not the same.

Adaptive streaming is a wonderful idea, but many services don't use it and many of us do not have access to Sony Ultra because we do not own a Sony TV. My high definition streaming from Netflix does not have a bitrate anywhere near what my blu-ray players provide during disc playback despite the capabilities of my ISP.

I have been backing up video content for over 13 years. I have made simple data discs with just the main feature's files and omitting all of the garbage trailers to complete 1:1 copies with everything included. I use single and dual layer dvds for some back-ups as well as single and dual layer blu-rays for back-ups. I even have some videos backed up to SSD drives and to a conventional external hard drive. I have told you this before, but seeing as you adore repetition, here it is again.

I hate to break this to you, but any monkey can make a back-up of a video; doing so does not make you a computer expert. I know enough to build mine from the mobo up, but I am no computer expert, either. I can read and follow instructions pretty good, though. When you can not even grasp the differences between how a disc player works and how streaming content from a server works and when you can not even define the terms correctly, you are ill equipped to discuss the subject.

I guess that makes us a pair of monkeys, and I go back to the DOS days and I too build my own Computers. My first had a 1Mb or RAM, and a 20Mb Hard Drive, and the person that sold it to me said that's all I would ever need. Back to Bit Streaming, you like to break words down, do you think Streaming is derived from here? You like Links and Reference, here is information from Lifewire talking about Bit Stream Management:

https://www.lifewire.com/what-is-bitstream-1846846

The Article talks about how Bit Streaming relates in a Home Theater environment, and how it occurs from a Disc Player or Internet Streaming. Like I said, Files on a Disc or Server are no different, a person that builds Computers should know this.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by alchav21

Like I said, Files on a Disc or Server are no different, a person that builds Computers should know this.

Bit streaming is simply data transfer. No one is arguing that. What is being transferred and how it is being transferred are where the differences lie. The "what" part theoretically could be the same, but streaming content providers do not send the same type of files that are found on a disc. Different files with different levels of compression. How the data transfer is achieved is not identical nor are the requirements for doing it. Anyone who has built a computer should be able to recognize that, too.

There is some kind of communication barrier between us and I can not explain these distinctions any better than I have already. I am going to stop trying now to the likely delight of everyone who follows this thread. I am confident that both of us are boring everyone else to tears. For the sake of our collective sanities, it is time to move on.

[master gandhi]

This thread ran its course a long time ago. Most people are just spinning their wheels at this point. Yet, there’s something about this topic that draws us back.

We know almost everything has been said and explored, but we keep wanting to see what’s been posted next.

Unless, of course, I’m wrong and others feel that this discussion deepens their understanding of other’s views on physical/digital and the future of one or the other or both.

I’m master gandhi, and I’m a digital enthusiast. Sorry if that offends anyone. Let me add that my living room has seven bookcases full of DVDs/Blu-rays and my home theater stand houses even more Blus, so I’m not some casual fan of movies. I love movies. My interest in digital doesn’t define the level of love I have for movies, thank you very much. Just like an avid disc collector isn’t automatically a movie guru. We have our preferred method of delivery. That’s about it.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

So by that logic... DVD and Blu-ray are the same because they are both files? Blu-ray and Ultra HD Blu-ray are the same because they are both files? SD streaming and 4K streaming are the same because they are both files?

Nobody is arguing that the disc itself makes physical media higher quality. It's the bitrate that matters. 4K streaming does not match the bitrate of Ultra HD Blu-ray. They are therefore using different files.

It's all digital but it's not all the same.

Additionally, no matter how high quality streaming gets it won't change the fact that customers have no control over it. I own my discs. I can therefore access the files on them without any involvement from the studios. I can also resell the discs and buy from other resellers without any involvement from the studios. Nothing can possibly be removed from my collection or the marketplace.

It's all just files but what you can do with them is different.

It also can’t be divided into different price points, restricted and stuck behind a walled garden. See my posts above.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by master gandhi

This thread ran its course a long time ago. Most people are just spinning their wheels at this point. Yet, there’s something about this topic that draws us back.

We know almost everything has been said and explored, but we keep wanting to see what’s been posted next.

Unless, of course, I’m wrong and others feel that this discussion deepens their understanding of other’s views on physical/digital and the future of one or the other or both.

I’m master gandhi, and I’m a digital enthusiast. Sorry if that offends anyone. Let me add that my living room has seven bookcases full of DVDs/Blu-rays and my home theater stand houses even more Blus, so I’m not some casual fan of movies. I love movies. My interest in digital doesn’t define the level of love I have for movies, thank you very much. Just like an avid disc collector isn’t automatically a movie guru. We have our preferred method of delivery. That’s about it.

If only it was that simple. All I know is if optical discs were the format of choice for everyone, home cinema wouldn’t be under threat in future, with Digital it most certainly is. Anyone buying into digital now is quickening that process. Especially now the industry can divide and conquer. See my post about tiered, limited subscriptions or read about Amazon’s ‘Echo only’ music subscription to see where video subscriptions could go in the future. I’m convinced of it. You simply couldn’t do that with disc.

[The_Donster]

Yes, but for how many years have you been spouting "The Sky is Falling!" and yet here we are steedeel

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by The_Donster

Yes, but for how many years have you been spouting "The Sky is Falling!" and yet here we are steedeel

These things take time to develop. Do you deny that this limited tier subscription is a thing? Amazon music on a Echo only is a thing and it’s grown to represent 14% of the streaming market. That’s a 150% percent increase. That’s a growing number of people who stream music to just the Echo or Echo dot for a cheaper fee per month.

Now imagine similar restrictive plans for smartphones, tablets etc.

Now imagine that model for subscription video? Do you see where that can take us? Tv only, tablet only, smartphone only? The cheapest would be the most popular (in this case smartphone.)

[master gandhi]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

These things take time to develop. Do you deny that this limited tier subscription is a thing? Amazon music on a Echo only is a thing and it’s grown to represent 14% of the streaming market. That’s a 150% percent increase. That’s a growing number of people who stream music to just the Echo or Echo dot for a cheaper fee per month.

Now imagine similar restrictive plans for smartphones, tablets etc.

Now imagine that model for subscription video? Do you see where that can take us? Tv only, tablet only, smartphone only? The cheapest would be the most popular (in this case smartphone.)

It sounds more like Amazon’s trying to sell more Echoes. Apple’s version of that in terms of movies is iTunes, which only works on Apple TV, iPhone, iPad, iPod or a computer with iTunes installed. Still, that still gives you choices, and if it’s a movie from a studio that’s part of Movies Anywhere, you can watch it virtually everywhere, provided that you’re in the U.S.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by master gandhi

It sounds more like Amazon’s trying to sell more Echoes. Apple’s version of that in terms of movies is iTunes, which only works on Apple TV, iPhone, iPad, iPod or a computer with iTunes installed. Still, that still gives you choices, and if it’s a movie from a studio that’s part of Movies Anywhere, you can watch it virtually everywhere, provided that you’re in the U.S.

It’s not just Amazon. Pandora have done it also. Expect more to follow.

[irighti]

I actually have the amazon music unlimited service. I went with the 7.99 (I believe that was the price), since it gave me access to the service on my phone, computer, kindle, echo etc. I do see why an echo only option exists. it is for people like my inlaws who have an echo but do not care to listen to a vast library of music outside of the home. so they have the echo only plan. plans like this not only help move the echo and other amazon devices...its awesome to have the option between the two plans. the plans that give you local access, or more varied access could be great for the consumer.

sure at some point things could become like you are describing. I highly doubt anyone will be foolish enough to pay for a service based on the size of the screen they will view it on. sure anyone can say anything in an article....even a highly ranked executive. it does not make it any more likely to happen. if anyone tried that i do not believe they would keep that highly ranked position for long.

steedeel, I think you make some valid points often. you have major concerns and I get that. this is more than a hobby to you, just like I think it is for most of us. iit is up to the consumer to be the voice when bad practices occur. so far I have been more than satisfied with what I want from the digital side. this is to compliment my physical collection...not replace it.

[jmerr]

Originally Posted by irighti

I actually have the amazon music unlimited service. I went with the 7.99 (I believe that was the price), since it gave me access to the service on my phone, computer, kindle, echo etc. I do see why an echo only option exists. it is for people like my inlaws who have an echo but do not care to listen to a vast library of music outside of the home. so they have the echo only plan. plans like this not only help move the echo and other amazon devices...its awesome to have the option between the two plans. the plans that give you local access, or more varied access could be great for the consumer.

sure at some point things could become like you are describing. I highly doubt anyone will be foolish enough to pay for a service based on the size of the screen they will view it on. sure anyone can say anything in an article....even a highly ranked executive. it does not make it any more likely to happen. if anyone tried that i do not believe they would keep that highly ranked position for long.

steedeel, I think you make some valid points often. you have major concerns and I get that. this is more than a hobby to you, just like I think it is for most of us. iit is up to the consumer to be the voice when bad practices occur. so far I have been more than satisfied with what I want from the digital side. this is to compliment my physical collection...not replace it.

I tried amazon music for while, but sometimes the downloads to my ipod would not play well and you could not edit playlists or delete downloaded songs. I am still using Spotify till they improve their app.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by irighti

I actually have the amazon music unlimited service. I went with the 7.99 (I believe that was the price), since it gave me access to the service on my phone, computer, kindle, echo etc. I do see why an echo only option exists. it is for people like my inlaws who have an echo but do not care to listen to a vast library of music outside of the home. so they have the echo only plan. plans like this not only help move the echo and other amazon devices...its awesome to have the option between the two plans. the plans that give you local access, or more varied access could be great for the consumer.

sure at some point things could become like you are describing. I highly doubt anyone will be foolish enough to pay for a service based on the size of the screen they will view it on. sure anyone can say anything in an article....even a highly ranked executive. it does not make it any more likely to happen. if anyone tried that i do not believe they would keep that highly ranked position for long.

steedeel, I think you make some valid points often. you have major concerns and I get that. this is more than a hobby to you, just like I think it is for most of us. iit is up to the consumer to be the voice when bad practices occur. so far I have been more than satisfied with what I want from the digital side. this is to compliment my physical collection...not replace it.

Cheers, my concern is that such plans, tiers could have people opting for a cheaper smartphone plan if it means saving money. Even if that means sitting watching mobile in the living room.

[irighti]

for a certain percentage sure, but for the vast majority I do not see that happening. although when I was out of college I would have killed for the options to have these services on a portable device, with the ability to cast from that device to a tv. cheap entertainment when you are first starting out would have been welcomed by me.

I have nou doubt things will look differently in a decade. I think it will only get better from the consumer side. fingers crossed of course.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by irighti

for a certain percentage sure, but for the vast majority I do not see that happening. although when I was out of college I would have killed for the options to have these services on a portable device, with the ability to cast from that device to a tv. cheap entertainment when you are first starting out would have been welcomed by me.

I have nou doubt things will look differently in a decade. I think it will only get better from the consumer side. fingers crossed of course.

I hope you are right. All I care about is viewing my films on a tv or projector.

[Vilya]

I am going to inject a little of my soothsaying paranoia here.

I am mildly concerned that increased dependence on the internet for our entertainment will only encourage the big telecomms and ISPs to find ever more ways to price gouge the consumer. I also fear that the demise of net neutrality, if it withstands all of the legal challenges it faces, will further embolden the telecomms to screw over their customers in new and exciting ways, such as prioritized website access for those websites that pay for it and throttled access for those websites that do not. I say I am mildly concerned because as a disc collector these potential telecomm shenanigans will not likely impact me as much as those of you who need uber speed & high data cap internet plans to enjoy your content.

For me, the internet exists so I can shop online globally for ever more discs. And, of course, to read all of the insightful, informative posts contained in forums like we have here at blu-ray.com.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I am going to inject a little of my soothsaying paranoia here.

I am mildly concerned that increased dependence on the internet for our entertainment will only encourage the big telecomms and ISPs to find ever more ways to price gouge the consumer. I also fear that the demise of net neutrality, if it withstands all of the legal challenges it faces, will further embolden the telecomms to screw over their customers in new and exciting ways, such as prioritized website access for those websites that pay for it and throttled access for those websites that do not. I say I am mildly concerned because as a disc collector these potential telecomm shenanigans will not likely impact me as much as those of you who need uber speed & high data cap internet plans to enjoy your content.

For me, the internet exists so I can shop online globally for ever more discs. And, of course, to read all of the insightful, informative posts contained in forums like we have here at blu-ray.com.

Oh no doubt. They won’t miss the chance to put the squeeze on.

[squidzilla]

I am glad there are choices out there for everyone, but for me, I will be physical only since I care about immersion. And for me that means I have lossless audio and the highest picture quality I can get. Granted, I am saying that while not even owning any UHD discs yet ( I am still planning out my equipment upgrades) or even a 4k blu ray player or TV ( I only watch movies on my 106 inch screen). When the time comes that I can live with any form of compression in my audio, maybe I will switch to digital.

I am kind of picky, I LIKE movies but only if they are of a certain quality in regards to both audio, and video. Otherwise they are background noise to something else I am doing. I have never watched any movie on my 60 inch plasma TV, and only because the screen is too small. It is great for games and TV shows though.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Cheers, my concern is that such plans, tiers could have people opting for a cheaper smartphone plan if it means saving money. Even if that means sitting watching mobile in the living room.

Can you point to any consumer good that doesn't have price tiers? That doesn't have cheaper options and more expensive options?

Economy cars didn't replace trucks or vans or performance cars or luxury cars. Rows of apartment buildings didn't replace houses. Frozen pizza didn't replace real pizza and McDonald's didn't replace steak. The transistor radio didn't replace amplifiers or speakers and neither did the Walkman. TV didn't replace theaters and neither did cable or VHS or DVD or VOD or any of the other alphabet soup threats du jour.

And phones and watches aren't going to replace TVs.

And if they ever do I'll be dead by then anyway so **** it.

Originally Posted by Vilya

I am going to inject a little of my soothsaying paranoia here.

I am mildly concerned that increased dependence on the internet for our entertainment will only encourage the big telecomms and ISPs to find ever more ways to price gouge the consumer.

As well they should. The marketplace is a dance between suppliers and consumers. They try to get as much of our money as they can and we try to get as much of their stuff as we can and neither of us wants to give an ounce more than we have to in the exchange.

And you know, it works.

Sure, there are abuses and there's always going to be a need for zealous oversight but by and large, it works. Greedy companies trying to gouge us as hard and as fast as they can have come up with some awfully cool shit over the years and cheapass customers squeezing every nickle as if our lives depended on it have kept them more or less honest.

There are some adjustments coming and frankly there needs to be. Somebody's gotta pay for all this bandwidth. Content providers don't want to pay for it and neither do we. But somebody's got to and the who and the how will have to work itself out over the next however many years.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by octagon

The marketplace is a dance between suppliers and consumers. They try to get as much of our money as they can and we try to get as much of their stuff as we can and neither of us wants to give an ounce more than we have to in the exchange.

And you know, it works.

Sure, there are abuses and there's always going to be a need for zealous oversight but by and large, it works. Greedy companies trying to gouge us as hard and as fast as they can have come up with some awfully cool shit over the years and cheapass customers squeezing every nickle as if our lives depended on it have kept them more or less honest.

There are some adjustments coming and frankly there needs to be. Somebody's gotta pay for all this bandwidth. Content providers don't want to pay for it and neither do we. But somebody's got to and the who and the how will have to work itself out over the next however many years.

I would say the marketplace is far more "caveat emptor" than "kumbaya." Only that oversight you mention keeps the corporate/ consumer relationship from becoming entirely exploitative.

Capitalism has undoubtedly spawned great innovations, but there are innumerable examples of criminal excess when corporations police themselves, have little or no competition, and are left unchecked. Oversight, regulation, and vigilance are what keep them honest, not the better angels of their natures. The same applies to consumers. The fact that so many people need to be kept honest proves that they are not inherently honest.

Of course, more bandwidth consumption will cost more, but telecomms are probably not content with pricing their services based on bandwidth usage alone. If net neutrality remains dead, they will likely get very creative in their pricing. They have been unleashed from the restrictions imposed by net neutrality and they will take advantage of it...and us. Telecomms have a reputation that precedes them and it is not a sterling one. Their ethics record is arguably only marginally better than that of the banking industry.

Anecdotally, my ISP has raised their rates and lowered their data caps for a double whammy while making no improvements whatsoever. They are charging more and offering less. As the only broadband provider in my area, they get away with it, too.

Oh, and my cynicism is inversely proportional to my caffeine consumption. Just the way it is.