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

[The_Donster]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Two signs of the impending apocalypse in the same day!

First, my not taking exception to anchovy21's post and now you and The Donster in agreement.

The White Horse and now The Red, two seals broken.

Back to full mode!

Originally Posted by octagon

Stream it. If you dare

BLASPHEMY, sinner!!

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by octagon

No, I don't think interactive movies will have any more impact - positive or negative - on the film industry than the interactive books on which they are based have had on the publishing industry.

The conclusion one should draw from my first paragraph is that I'm disdainful of leaving well enough alone.

Leaving well enough alone sounds swell until one considers that we would have never gotten to the point that we consider 'well enough' if the people who got us here had left well enough alone.

We have kids interacting with their tablets, smartphones etc.. they play games, use YouTube, learn, all on touchscreen devices. I’m not sure if they can go back to regular tv it films if they become used to interacting with their films. It’s second nature for young people now to interact with their media. This interactive stuff is far more damaging than you realise for film, or at least traditional film lovers.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

I'm sure when movies first came out people thought books would die out. I'm sure when video games came out people thought movies would die out. This is no different, whether interactive movies become popular or not there is no chance that they will replace traditional movies. It's just different forms of media for different audiences.

You have such a warped view of young people and think that they are all hooked on their smartphones and want to use them for everything. I know plenty of people in their 20s that barely use their phones. I also know people in their 70s who are hooked on their phones. It's not a generational thing, there will always be a mix of different people with different tastes.

They are all hooked on their smartphones?

[alchav21]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Yet people continue to jump to digital. It’s like they want film to die in it’s true form.

I know you guys separate Physical and Digital, but now it's all shot in Digital with a few exceptions. So don't you think the next natural step will be to Distribute this Content from a Server? If Movies are put on Hard Drives for Distribution to Cinemas. To me it makes natural sense to Distribute these Movies to Cinemas and Home Theaters from a Server.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

We have kids interacting with their tablets, smartphones etc.. they play games, use YouTube, learn, all on touchscreen devices.

Yeah, so?

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I’m not sure if they can go back to regular tv it films if they become used to interacting with their films. It’s second nature for young people now to interact with their media.

What does 'interacting with their media' even mean? Is there an entire generation of media consumers editing tv shows on the fly or something? Or is watching a youtube video no different than watching any other kind of video?

What is it about this particular form of interaction that scares you so?

Originally Posted by Steedeel

This interactive stuff is far more damaging than you realise for film, or at least traditional film lovers.

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

I'm sure when movies first came out people thought books would die out. I'm sure when video games came out people thought movies would die out. This is no different, whether interactive movies become popular or not there is no chance that they will replace traditional movies. It's just different forms of media for different audiences.

Exactly and you're not even touching on the 8,000,000,000 lb gorilla. Television was going to destroy, well, everything.

Books, movies, newspapers, western civilization itself were all going to be laid waste by the idiot box.

Entire generations of mind numbed zombies were going to drag society to its inevitable doom.

Or not.

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

You have such a warped view of young people and think that they are all hooked on their smartphones and want to use them for everything. I know plenty of people in their 20s that barely use their phones. I also know people in their 70s who are hooked on their phones. It's not a generational thing, there will always be a mix of different people with different tastes.

The other real problem with wringing ones hands over these kids today and their darned this and their damned that is that people aren't generally frozen in amber as pre-teens or teens. People change over time. Their priorities change, their habits change, their interests change...people change.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by octagon

Yeah, so?



What does 'interacting with their media' even mean? Is there an entire generation of media consumers editing tv shows on the fly or something? Or is watching a youtube video no different than watching any other kind of video?

What is it about this particular form of interaction that scares you so?







Exactly and you're not even touching on the 8,000,000,000 lb gorilla. Television was going to destroy, well, everything.

Books, movies, newspapers, western civilization itself were all going to be laid waste by the idiot box.

Entire generations of mind numbed zombies were going to drag society to its inevitable doom.

Or not.



The other real problem with wringing ones hands over these kids today and their darned this and their damned that is that people aren't generally frozen in amber as pre-teens or teens. People change over time. Their priorities change, their habits change, their interests change...people change.

What do u mean, yeah so? I mean kids are using touch screens constantly. It’s no stretch at all for them to select options in a interactive film. Now, would those same kids be prepared to back to regular films after becoming accustomed to the other style? I say no.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

What do u mean, yeah so? I mean kids are using touch screens constantly. It’s no stretch at all for them to select options in a interactive film. Now, would those same kids be prepared to back to regular films after becoming accustomed to the other style? I say no.

The only thing I am worried about here is how much you worry about it.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

The only thing I am worried about here is how much you worry about it.

Well, considering my love of film? A heck of a lot.

[Vilya]

I think it is safe to say that I love film, too, but I am confident that conventional film making will continue unabated despite this new, and yet unproven, aberration.

I can't think of any form of home entertainment that has eliminated any other form, with the possible exception of serial radio dramas; television has pretty much buried them.

Even so, many of those radio broadcasts are still available on disc or by download; there just aren't many new ones that I am aware of.

Plenty of room at the home entertainment table and you are free to invite only the guests that you prefer.

[Alex82]

When Avatar had a colossal box-office success almost 10 years ago, a lot of people were afraid that 3D films would take over eventually and the studios would only care about 3D.

And look, they are still doing "conventional" films and 3D has its place.

Relax Steedeel, even if interactive films become a reality in the future, a lot of film makers will create their films the same way they do now or 10 or 20 or 50 years ago.

I honestly can't imagine a director like say, Paul Thomas Anderson creating interactive adventures if that becomes a reality.

[Show spoiler]

And lets say interactive films are the only thing that studios do in the future... we still have over a century worth of regular movies to enjoy without worrying about such thing.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

What do u mean, yeah so?

I mean yeah kids use touchscreens and so what.

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I mean kids are using touch screens constantly.

Yeah, they do.

Originally Posted by Steedeel

It’s no stretch at all for them to select options in a interactive film.

So what?

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Now, would those same kids be prepared to back to regular films after becoming accustomed to the other style? I say no.

You know, for somebody who loves film you seem to have precious little faith in it. Film has not only shown itself to be an incredibly rich medium, it's also shown itself to be an incredibly adaptable and durable medium.

It's weathered innumerable challenges and changes over the past century or so and is not only none the worse for wear, it's better than ever.

The vast majority of these damn kids today either already love film or will learn to love it as they grow older.

And the ones that don't? They'll find something else they enjoy and that's fine too.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by alchav21

I know you guys separate Physical and Digital, but now it's all shot in Digital with a few exceptions. So don't you think the next natural step will be to Distribute this Content from a Server? If Movies are put on Hard Drives for Distribution to Cinemas. To me it makes natural sense to Distribute these Movies to Cinemas and Home Theater from a Server.

How movies are shot is irrelevant.

Where the data is located, how it is accessed, and who has control over it is relevant. It is not "natural" that everyone should want to relinquish their possession of that data and instead rely on a server farm, proprietary software, and their ISP to access it. All this accomplishes is the placement of unnecessary hurdles in the playback chain and necessitates requirements that the consumer has zero control over.

Disc playback is not burdened with any of these requirements. Disc, disc player, hdmi cable, display, electricity, modern AVR, and speaker array and you have everything you need for the best in home experience possible.

Disc advocates want to have the data in their possession. They want full control over it. Disc still offers the highest quality and the most reliable and consistent performance. Disc playback never has to pause for buffering nor does its image deteriorate due to fluctuations in resolution. No dependence upon inconsistent ISP's nor reliance upon overwhelmed and poorly maintained servers.

Having a commercial movie theater rely on internet access to present a public showing of a movie is patently absurd. The fact that theaters DO NOT rely on servers, and the internet connections to them, is ample proof that doing so would be a very, very bad idea. Too many ways for too many things to go wrong.

Theaters audiences expect a reliably consistent experience and the highest quality in image and sound reproduction. That is why they rely on a local hard drive, and SSDs at that. Server based content can not, and does not, meet that standard. Remote access to servers only increases the risk of failure. Audiences dislike failure.

Edit: corrected myself here:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=8647

[alchav21]

How about Server to Server, you know they can put Servers anywhere, even in Cinemas or your ISP, with Fiber connections or course. The Studios just want to sell Movies, and for their Movies to be secure.

[Groot]

Originally Posted by octagon

I mean yeah kids use touchscreens and so what.

I dunno man, I could for a film that let's me control Thor with my....fingers.

[stonesfan129]

When I merged my libraries together for VUDU, I noticed it gave me Jason Bourne (2016) in my iTunes library in 1080p HD. I downloaded and watched this in iTunes on my desktop PC and quite honestly for the file size it is, the encode looks pretty good. I'm using a 24" Samsung LED 1080p monitor. I tried hard to find fault in the encode and had a hard time. I wonder if with newer Apple devices being more powerful that they can use more aggressive encoding settings and make it look better than it used to.

[PCFan]

Originally Posted by stonesfan129

When I merged my libraries together for VUDU, I noticed it gave me Jason Bourne (2016) in my iTunes library in 1080p HD. I downloaded and watched this in iTunes on my desktop PC and quite honestly for the file size it is, the encode looks pretty good. I'm using a 24" Samsung LED 1080p monitor. I tried hard to find fault in the encode and had a hard time. I wonder if with newer Apple devices being more powerful that they can use more aggressive encoding settings and make it look better than it used to.

In iTunes, I noticed that some movies that are downloaded look worse than them being streamed. For example, the movie Wild. Also someone a few months back in this thread said he was getting around 13 mbps for streaming a movie online from the iTunes servers and around 5 mbps when he played the same movie downloaded from iTunes using Home Sharing.

[alchav21]

Originally Posted by PCFan

In iTunes, I noticed that some movies that are downloaded look worse than them being streamed. For example, the movie Wild. Also someone a few months back in this thread said he was getting around 13 mbps for streaming a movie online from the iTunes servers and around 5 mbps when he played the same movie downloaded from iTunes using Home Sharing.

You can't compare the Downloads to Streaming, the Downloads are highly compressed for efficiency. With the new Codec and Adaptive Streaming, the Quality is way superior to Downloads.

[veritas]

If you want an example of why its bad to put your faith in a company doing the right thing when it writes eulas to do whatever it wants you should look at moviepass. They put in their eula that they can basically change the deal whenever they want and they are now going from 1 movie a day no limits to 4 movies a month for at least some people to no repeat viewings of the same movie for anyone. This is a subscription company so they are only screwing people who have a yearly pass but it could just as easily happen to people using vod services like Vudu or iTunes because they put stuff in like we reserve the right to charge steaming fees discontinue service etc.

When you agree to a license with a company like photobucket, walmart or moviepass (all 3 of these guys have done skumy things with tos before) and you agree to letting them do skumy things if they so choose expect them to eventually do those skumy things.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by alchav21

How about Server to Server, you know they can put Servers anywhere, even in Cinemas or your ISP, with Fiber connections or course. The Studios just want to sell Movies, and for their Movies to be secure.

It just so hapoens, interactive films cannot be pirated.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by veritas

If you want an example of why its bad to put your faith in a company doing the right thing when it writes eulas to do whatever it wants you should look at moviepass. They put in their eula that they can basically change the deal whenever they want and they are now going from 1 movie a day no limits to 4 movies a month for at least some people to no repeat viewings of the same movie for anyone. This is a subscription company so they are only screwing people who have a yearly pass but it could just as easily happen to people using vod services like Vudu or iTunes because they put stuff in like we reserve the right to charge steaming fees discontinue service etc.

When you agree to a license with a company like photobucket, walmart or moviepass (all 3 of these guys have done skumy things with tos before) and you agree to letting them do skumy things if they so choose expect them to eventually do those skumy things.

Scummy my friend not skumy. Sorry but after three times, it was starting to grate on me.