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

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

If we still have films, watchable on a big display at home, as the director intended, I will die happy.

On your death bed your last whispered words should be 'octagon was right'.

Not only would that be the right thing to do, nobody will know what the **** you're talking about. It could be your Rosebud.

Talk about a win/win.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by Ender14

As I have stated previously, you are either incapable of rational thought or do it intentionally to get a rise out of people.

IMO, a combo of both. He is not a tech person and some of his post are that of a troll.

[Wendell R. Breland]

The streaming provider/content/hardware CF continues, some more here.

I really hate being hostage to marketing people as in no Atmos on most 3D movies, no immersive audio on several Blu-ray titles while the UHD Blu-ray does have immersive audio. At least I can buy and use the UHD version.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by octagon

On your death bed your last whispered words should be 'octagon was right'.

Not only would that be the right thing to do, nobody will know what the **** you're talking about. It could be your Rosebud.

Talk about a win/win.

Nah, my deathbed speech is telling someone where I buried the bodies!

[alchav21]

Originally Posted by cminer72

Strange you are attacked for pointing out the obvious.

Originally Posted by Ender14

I promise you he is not the victim here. Just check out his previous posts if you haven't already.

Yes you can look at my previous Posts, I just try and defend Digital because the hard core people that prefer Discs put down the Digital people. They say we don't appreciate Quality, and it's all about convenience. The Streaming Quality has come up, and it will get better. Just like Streaming from a Disc or Streaming from a Server, it's all about set-up and your equipment.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by alchav21

Yes you can look at my previous Posts, I just try and defend Digital because the hard core people that prefer Discs put down the Digital people. They say we don't appreciate Quality, and it's all about convenience. The Streaming Quality has come up, and it will get better. Just like Streaming from a Disc or Streaming from a Server, it's all about set-up and your equipment.

Streaming quality has been stagnant for years. Are quality conscious customers like you the ones that will demand improvements from the streaming providers? Are cheapskates like you, who sniff around here for free codes, the ones who will be willing to pay for the extra bandwidth and data usage necessary to improve streaming? People like you who listen with their TV's speakers, or with headphones, are going to usher streaming into a new age of better quality and be willing to pay more to get it? Everything about your viewing and listening behavior is done on the cheap, but you would have us believe that you, and people like you, are willing to pay more to get improved quality.

I really doubt it. You already think streaming is awesome, so why would you want to pay more? Streaming customers are already happy, so why would the providers want to spend more? Just imagine how wonderful lossless audio would sound delivered via your TV's speakers if streaming were to ever offer it.

We do not put down "digital people"; we kill them in video games. There are plenty of other advocates for digital that frequent this thread and none of them draw the fire that you do because none of them behave like you do. None of them repeat patently stupid shit even after it has been refuted dozens of times- like you do. They do not troll like you do.

This disc buyer is a digital renter; I use digital services. If the quality wasn't acceptable, I would not spend my time or money using them. Acceptable quality is not the same thing as best quality; a distinction that you can not comprehend. For purchases, I want the best quality AND I want real ownership. Discs give me that; digital does not.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by alchav21

Yes you can look at my previous Posts, I just try and defend Digital because the hard core people that prefer Discs put down the Digital people. They say we don't appreciate Quality, and it's all about convenience. The Streaming Quality has come up, and it will get better. Just like Streaming from a Disc or Streaming from a Server, it's all about set-up and your equipment.

No it isn’t. As many have said, it’s about what bit rates the streaming services are putting out.

[sapiendut]

Originally Posted by alchav21

Yes you can look at my previous Posts, I just try and defend Digital because the hard core people that prefer Discs put down the Digital people. They say we don't appreciate Quality, and it's all about convenience. The Streaming Quality has come up, and it will get better. Just like Streaming from a Disc or Streaming from a Server, it's all about set-up and your equipment.

See my equipment list in my signature, add ATV 4K and Nvidia Shield, 600 mbps constant downstream... still the Quality of streaming is just barely acceptable. Netflix is still annoyingly banding with lots of artifacts.

The problem is not the setup. The problem is the excessively low bitrate used by providers.

Just count your lucky stars that you’ve never seen a disc in action and/or have the proficiency to see the artifacts of streaming.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Streaming quality has been stagnant for years. Are quality conscious customers like you the ones that will demand improvements from the streaming providers? Are cheapskates like you, who sniff around here for free codes, the ones who will be willing to pay for the extra bandwidth and data usage necessary to improve streaming? People like you who listen with their TV's speakers, or with headphones, are going to usher streaming into a new age of better quality and be willing to pay more to get it? Everything about your viewing and listening behavior is done on the cheap, but you would have us believe that you, and people like you, are willing to pay more to get improved quality.

Laugh all you want but cheapskates do far more to drive markets and innovation than the relative handful of consumers who have to be on the bleeding edge.

Don't get me wrong, the bleeding edge folks definitely do their part but - to pick one example - if everybody who wanted more hard drive space was willing to pay for it hard drive manufacturers would have very little incentive to squeeze every single byte out of every single platter (or to eliminate platters entirely, for that matter).

The people who want more stuff but aren't willing to pay for it are the people who drive innovation because suppliers know they can lure some of those cheapskates away from their competitors by offering more for the same price.

Bigger hard drives, bigger TV screens, higher resolutions, deeper blacks, brighter colors, better streaming quality, more channels, fewer commercials...all of these are ways suppliers can try differentiate themselves from competitors and as such they all provide incentives for suppliers to find ways to provide more for less.

So yeah, the cheapskates are going to be the ones who drive the quality of streaming forward.

Originally Posted by Vilya

We do not put down "digital people";...

Uh huh. So when in this very post you called them cheapskates sniffing around for free codes you meant that in the good way? You were what?
Praising their frugality?

Let's be honest, the people who 'want the best and are willing to pay for it' aren't always shy about sneering at the great unwashed and their unenlightened ways.

Which is fine. Just own it.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by octagon

Laugh all you want but cheapskates do far more to drive markets and innovation than the relative handful of consumers who have to be on the bleeding edge.

You really believe cheapskates is the reason we have had all the advancements in audio and video? Not from where I sit, quad sound in 1972, 7 channels of audio in 1987, 78" projector in 1984, LaserDisc 1984, βetamax Hi-Fi in 1984, etc., etc. None of this was designed for the cheapskate market.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

You really believe cheapskates is the reason we have had all the advancements in audio and video? Not from where I sit, quad sound in 1972, 7 channels of audio in 1987, 78" projector in 1984, LaserDisc 1984, βetamax Hi-Fi in 1984, etc., etc. None of this was designed for the cheapskate market.

I do, actually. Like I said, the bleeding edge folks definitely do their part but the cheapskates do the heavy lifting when it comes to pushing stuff forward because that's where the real money is.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by alchav21

Yes you can look at my previous Posts, I just try and defend Digital because the hard core people that prefer Discs put down the Digital people.

Only when streamers say streaming is = to disc because it is not. I have no problem if someone says they prefer to watch VHS tapes instead of Blu-ray disc because that is just a personal preference.

I have been streaming video since the late 90's and continue to stream several hours a week. It is mostly TV stuff.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by octagon

I do, actually. Like I said, the bleeding edge folks definitely do their part but the cheapskates do the heavy lifting when it comes to pushing stuff forward because that's where the real money is.

Could be but you will have to show me the numbers. I would wager 80% (or more) of the viewing public watch on a 65" TV or less and listen via the TV speakers or a cheap sound bar.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by octagon

Laugh all you want but cheapskates do far more to drive markets and innovation than the relative handful of consumers who have to be on the bleeding edge.

Don't get me wrong, the bleeding edge folks definitely do their part but - to pick one example - if everybody who wanted more hard drive space was willing to pay for it hard drive manufacturers would have very little incentive to squeeze every single byte out of every single platter (or to eliminate platters entirely, for that matter).

The people who want more stuff but aren't willing to pay for it are the people who drive innovation because suppliers know they can lure some of those cheapskates away from their competitors by offering more for the same price.

Bigger hard drives, bigger TV screens, higher resolutions, deeper blacks, brighter colors, better streaming quality, more channels, fewer commercials...all of these are ways suppliers can try differentiate themselves from competitors and as such they all provide incentives for suppliers to find ways to provide more for less.

So yeah, the cheapskates are going to be the ones who drive the quality of streaming forward.

Uh huh. So when in this very post you called them cheapskates sniffing around for free codes you meant that in the good way? You were what?
Praising their frugality?

Let's be honest, the people who 'want the best and are willing to pay for it' aren't always shy about sneering at the great unwashed and their unenlightened ways.

Which is fine. Just own it.

I am not so much laughing at the cheapskates, plural, as I am laughing at this particular one. I fully understand the importance of marketing goods and services to the more economy minded as their numbers are legion.

I live on a fixed income myself and I create budgets every month that account for every last penny. I am very efficient with most of my spending and that allows me to splurge on certain other hobbies.

One of streaming's biggest selling points is its low cost. If streaming were to improve their quality by substantially increasing their bitrates that would result in more bandwidth and more data usage which in turn would result in more cost to their customer.

Higher costs to deliver better quality could lessen the attractiveness of these streaming services especially when their customers are already largely satisfied with what they are getting now. Why do the providers need to improve their quality when few are asking them to and when it would raise their costs to provide it? Costs that they would have to pass on to their customers who don't show any interest in paying extra? There's a saying that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I can not recall reading any posts here from a single streaming advocate who has expressed a willingness to pay more to get more.

The masses drive some innovation particularly as regards efficiency and getting the most possible for the least cost, but the enthusiasts spur cutting edge advancements because we are the ones willing to pay for them. The penny pinchers wait for the price to drop years later if they adopt the new technology at all. We are talking about people who still listen to modern movies and TV shows with their immersive audio tracks via their TV's speakers, or, maybe, a low cost soundbar. These are the people that still think that DVD quality is great. They do not so much motivate innovation as they wait for it to go on sale- and they may still pass on it even then.

My comment about sniffing around for free codes was specifically aimed at the person that I quoted. He comes here to this website to get cheap codes from disc buyers while simultaneously hoping for the demise of the disc market. Disc buyers are the very source for many of his bargain finds, yet he trolls us with his moronic posts. He bites the very hands that feed him.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I am not so much laughing at the cheapskates, plural, as I am laughing at this particular one. I fully understand the importance of marketing goods and services to the more economy minded as their numbers are legion.

I live on a fixed income myself and I create budgets every month that account for every last penny. I am very efficient with most of my spending and that allows me to splurge on certain other hobbies.

One of streaming's biggest selling points is its low cost. If streaming were to improve their quality by substantially increasing their bitrates that would result in more bandwidth and more data usage which in turn would result in more cost to their customer.

Higher costs to deliver better quality could lessen the attractiveness of these streaming services especially when their customers are already largely satisfied with what they are getting now. Why do the providers need to improve their quality when few are asking them to and when it would raise their costs to provide it? Costs they would have to pass on to their customers who don't show any interest in paying extra? There's a saying that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I can not recall reading any posts here from a single streaming advocate who has expressed a willingness to pay more to get more.

The masses drive some innovation particularly as regards efficiency and getting the most possible for the least cost, but the enthusiasts spur cutting edge advancements because we are the ones willing to pay for them. The penny pinchers wait for the price to drop years later if they adopt the new technology at all. We are talking about people who still listen to modern movies and TV shows with their immersive audio tracks via their TV's speakers, or, maybe, a low cost soundbar. These are the people that still think that DVD quality is great. They do not so much motivate innovation as they wait for a sale on it- and they may still pass on it even then.

My comment about sniffing around for free codes was specifically aimed at the person that I quoted. He comes here to this website to get cheap codes from disc buyers while simultaneously hoping for the demise of the disc market. Disc buyers are the very source for many of his bargain finds, yet he trolls us with his moronic posts.

I can’t stand scroungers.

[Wendell R. Breland]

I find it hard to believe the Trinnov Altitude 32 was designed for cheapskates. In the following video Blu-ray was mentioned several times, streaming was never mentioned.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBc8...ature=youtu.be

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I can’t stand scroungers.

Ungrateful scroungers are exponentially worse.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Ungrateful scroungers are exponentially worse.

True.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

Could be but you will have to show me the numbers. I would wager 80% (or more) of the viewing public watch on a 65" TV or less and listen via the TV speakers or a cheap sound bar.

Your question kind of makes my point. A 65" TV is practically entry-level these days. Anything smaller than 55" is considered a dorm or bedroom TV.

That's pretty freaking remarkable. And who drove that? I would argue that it wasn't the 'you can have my Kuro when you pry it from my cold dead hands' crowd. I would argue that TVs keep getting bigger, better and cheaper primarily because manufacturers are chasing the dollars spent by people who shop in big box stores.

Originally Posted by Vilya

One of streaming's biggest selling points is its low cost. If streaming were to improve their quality by substantially increasing their bitrates that would result in more bandwidth and more data usage which in turn would result in more cost to their customer.

Not necessarily. Just over the past several years we've seen remarkable improvements to network infrastructures. Data pipes that would have seemed like science fiction a decade or two ago are now the bare minimum for telephone. People might not what the hell a gig is but they know they like 'em and they know more is better.

And suppliers know they know.

Compression is going to get better, delivery is going to get better, storage is going to get cheaper and this will in large measure be driven by just plain folk.

Originally Posted by Vilya

Why do the providers need to improve their quality when few are asking them to and when it would raise their costs to provide it? Costs that they would have to pass on to their customers who don't show any interest in paying extra? There's a saying that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I can not recall reading any posts here from a single streaming advocate who has expressed a willingness to pay more to get more.

Right. They're not willing to pay more to get more. They want more but you're right, they're not willing to pay more for it.

Which is why suppliers are investing tons o' capital in trying to find cheaper and more efficient ways of giving consumers what they want.

Just look at commercials for mobile plans or cable plans or the like. They all tout how more you get with them and how much you save doing it. Unlimited data, faster speeds, more devices doing more things at the same time...consumers want more and suppliers want to give it to them.

Streaming is going to continue to get better and that's going to be driven primarily by just plain folk.

Originally Posted by Vilya

The masses drive some innovation particularly as regards efficiency and getting the most possible for the least cost, but the enthusiasts spur cutting edge advancements because we are the ones willing to pay for them. The penny pinchers wait for the price to drop years later if they adopt the new technology at all. We are talking about people who still listen to modern movies and TV shows with their immersive audio tracks via their TV's speakers, or, maybe, a low cost soundbar.

I don't know why you guys keep harping on this soundbar thing. It's not like putting five or seven or eleven speakers in a room is more 'cutting edge' than two. It's just more speakers.

And it's not like the desire for more and more speakers has changed the way speakers work. Speakers more air. That's pretty much the long and the short of it.

But to your point, I'm not dismissing the role of early adopters. They definitely play a part.

But Home Theater did not become A Thing because of enthusiasts oohing and ahhing over their Betamaxes or their LaserDisc players. Home Theater became A Thing when the masses embraced VHS.

Originally Posted by Vilya

These are the people that still think that DVD quality is great. They do not so much motivate innovation as they wait for it to go on sale- and they may still pass on it even then.

And who kept DVD from being just another niche tech like the aforementioned LaserDisc? When companies were doing R&D on DVD what do you think motivated them? The prospect that they might rake in all that phat early adopter money from a few hundred thousand (if that) enthusiasts?

Or were they motivated by hopes of a somewhat bigger score?

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

I find it hard to believe the Trinnov Altitude 32 was designed for cheapskates.

Yes, nice toys are nice. They might not change the world but they can definitely be cool.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by octagon

Your question kind of makes my point. A 65" TV is practically entry-level these days. Anything smaller than 55" is considered a dorm or bedroom TV.

That's pretty freaking remarkable. And who drove that? I would argue that it wasn't the 'you can have my Kuro when you pry it from my cold dead hands' crowd. I would argue that TVs keep getting bigger, better and cheaper primarily because manufacturers are chasing the dollars spent by people who shop in big box stores.

Not necessarily. Just over the past several years we've seen remarkable improvements to network infrastructures. Data pipes that would have seemed like science fiction a decade or two ago are now the bare minimum for telephone. People might not what the hell a gig is but they know they like 'em and they know more is better.

And suppliers know they know.

Compression is going to get better, delivery is going to get better, storage is going to get cheaper and this will in large measure be driven by just plain folk.

Right. They're not willing to pay more to get more. They want more but you're right, they're not willing to pay more for it.

Which is why suppliers are investing tons o' capital in trying to find cheaper and more efficient ways of giving consumers what they want.

Just look at commercials for mobile plans or cable plans or the like. They all tout how more you get with them and how much you save doing it. Unlimited data, faster speeds, more devices doing more things at the same time...consumers want more and suppliers want to give it to them.

Streaming is going to continue to get better and that's going to be driven primarily by just plain folk.

I don't know why you guys keep harping on this soundbar thing. It's not like putting five or seven or eleven speakers in a room is more 'cutting edge' than two. It's just more speakers.

And it's not like the desire for more and more speakers has changed the way speakers work. Speakers more air. That's pretty much the long and the short of it.

But to your point, I'm not dismissing the role of early adopters. They definitely play a part.

But Home Theater did not become A Thing because of enthusiasts oohing and ahhing over their Betamaxes or their LaserDisc players. Home Theater became A Thing when the masses embraced VHS.

And who kept DVD from being just another niche tech like the aforementioned LaserDisc? When companies were doing R&D on DVD what do you think motivated them? The prospect that they might rake in all that phat early adopter money from a few hundred thousand (if that) enthusiasts?

Or were they motivated by hopes of a somewhat bigger score?

No one is contesting the importance of the mainstream bargain minded buyer. Who doesn't want to see their product become a hit on Main Street? Enthusiasts drive cutting edge innovation and the rest join in after the research and development costs have been recovered from the sales to the early adopters. As more units are made, manufacturing costs go down, and more average Joe and Jane's choose to join in the fun.

Remarkable improvements to internet infrastructure may have occured in urban areas like where you live, but not everyone lives in population centers like Chicago. No improvements to internet service have occurred in my region and many here can not get anything better than 25 Mbps ADSL internet. They can barely stream what passes for 4K on Netflix now and the internet service providers have shown no signs that they plan to improve anything anytime soon.

What internet providers exist in rural areas like mine have no competition; they literally charge what they want and they impose data caps. My ISP has raised my rates over 40% in just three years; my options are to pay it or do without. That's the reality outside of your internet Emerald City of Chicago.

If better codecs come along they will benefit discs every bit as much as they will streaming. Even if the big telecom giants decide to run fiber to every Hooterville in America, fat chance, that does not automatically mean that streaming providers will up their game. More bandwidth and more data usage will increase costs, not lessen them, and will the typical streamer who pays $10 per month to stream be willing to pay more both to their ISP and to their streaming provider to access better quality that they never asked for in the first place? I doubt it.

Streaming quality has been stagnant since 2015 despite urban areas like yours offering 1-10 Gbps internet service. Not one streaming provider has taken advantage of that bandwidth and increased their bitrates. Why is that? Because they see no need and it would cost them more money and that cost would have to be borne by customers that hate price increases.

My mobile phone bill has only gone up, not down, and my "unlimited" data has a data cap. AT&T, in their fine print, clearly states that once I exceed my data cap, they will throttle me effectively neutering my so-called unlimited data. They won't charge me more, but they will make my using more data a miserable experience. The devil's in the details; you gotta read that fine print. AT&T was recently fined $60 million for their misleading claims about their "unlimited" data.

"it (AT&T) began throttling data speeds in 2011 for its unlimited data plan customers after they used as little as 2 gigabytes of data in a billing period."

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/pres...sled-consumers

AT&T still does this; they were just required to mention this little detail in their terms of service that they know few people will ever read. AT&T can't seem to go a year without being fined for one deceptive practice or another. The telecoms want to give it to their customers alright and give it to them good.

Your comment about speakers is just uncharacteristically stupid of you. A true multi-channel surround sound home theater trounces any soundbar in existence and while speakers do move air it is not that simple. A mere fan moves air; speakers do a hell of a lot more than that. Speakers vary in quality immensely and almost all of us know this.

Home theater is still a niche; it is not mainstream as many people do not want the expense and/ or do not like the aesthetics of them. Being mainstream is not important, anyways. Being viable and being profitable are. Mainstream adoption certainly helps, but we have always had many luxury categories that the average customer never delved into.

VHS never offered anything more than Hi-Fi stereo; there was never any requirement for a multi-channel multi-speaker home theater set-up to take advantage of it. Most people already owned stereos; these VCRs were just able to make use of something that many people already had. I bought my first Hi-Fi vcr in 1986 at a cost of $800 back then. It was a damn long time later before Hi-Fi stereo vcrs were consumer friendly priced.

Laserdiscs were the best home video entertainment format for over a decade, yet they were never embraced by the VHS satisfied public. Yet, they were still deemed profitable and worth making as many niche products are.

DVDs were not all that attractively priced in 1997 nor were the players, but that eventually changed because the enthusiasts embraced them first, the research and development costs were recouped thanks to these early adopters, discs and players became more affordable and then, and only then, did these products become mainstream.

It is probably a safe assumption to make that any company that markets a new technology has hopes that their product will be a big hit, but they will be happy with a profitable niche market, too. Many luxuries exist that their manufacturers knew full well would never be found in every one's home, but they also knew that there were enough quality minded consumers to justify their investment.

Enthusiasts drive innovation; they always support it first when it is in its infancy and at its most fragile economic state of deployment. The masses come along years later when there's a sale and a bargain to be had. They ride on the backs of the enthusiasts.