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

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by alchav21

Neither do most of you guys according to John Sciacca, Sound & Vision. Most of us have Media Rooms, as opposed to Home Theaters dedicated to watching Movies:

One can see my equipment list by clicking the RED in my signature line but I will do a short recap for you. I use a true 4K (4096) projector with a 133" scope screen in a dedicated home theater room with 100% light control. Floors, walls and ceiling are very low light reflecting surfaces and have been treated to have a low RT60 down to 500 Hz. The sound system has a dedicated Dolby Atmos/DTS:X processor setup and uses 13 loudspeakers driven by 6 stereo and 2 mono audio amplifiers. The system is capable of over 3,600 watts of audio power. I have a dedicated 30 amp AC for equipment, a semi dedicated 20 amp AC for sub-woofers and a dedicated 15 amp AC for lighting. My setup is modest by some standards but exceeds what many others have. Remember my comment about Einstein and the law of relativity?

Because you said you were a vet I tried my best to educate you a little about audio and video quality so you would stop making ridiculous post here and having folks laugh at you. In all my years of BBSing (private, CompuServe, AOL, numerous internet BBS) you are the second person I have dealt with that appeared to be incapable of learning anything. I would like you to prove me wrong, the ball is in your court!

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

Do I know what it is... puuuuuhlease...

It will become an option... and a very poorly used one at that (by comparison). It will exist, but it won’t get used near enough to become the basis upon which the main supply of content gets created. It will be something which will continue to be an afterthought and a product of the manipulation of the current style of full length content.

You have just proven you don’t know what it is.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

It isn’t another entertainment option, it’s going to be built as a foundation for ALL video. It’s a standard that is going to change how media is presented to people. It’s only 4 years away and it will replace the current broadcasting and video standards to allow things like adjustable length programmes that can be turned into bite size chunks (short form says hello) and become far more interactive. Everything is pointing to the bastardisation of film and tv. I keep saying it and no one is getting it. In effect, the whole industry is catering to smartphones and short attention spans.

No, I will ring the alarm bell when my OWN views corresponds with some major tech news (and this IS major tech news). I have brought this point up several times but some people aren’t interested in saving film and are hurrying the process up by going digital.

Most peculiar; none of that is mentioned in the article that you linked to AND you still have not produced any data that shows either movies or TVs to be under any threat. All of these outcomes are but figments of your imagination. No one is "getting it" because there is NOTHING to support the absurd conclusions you draw.

Attention spans are not getting shorter; your fixation on repeating what has been scientifically disproven does not change that fact. You have no evidence; you dispute the science with nothing but your unqualified opinions and anecdotal observations of young people using their phones more often than you approve of and in ways that you dislike. This isn't a counter argument to the verified science; it is just your bias.

Smartphones and tablets have existed for several years, with roots going as far back as 1992. Over the last decade, smartphones have grown to become amazing computing devices with a plethora of features. During all of this time, TV shows, movies, video games for both consoles and computers, projectors, and TVs themselves have all thrived despite a wealth of entertainment being developed for mobile devices. They will continue to thrive even as more entertainment is offered for mobile devices. All of these things have co-existed for years now.

Suit yourself, ring that bell all you like, but you have already become the little boy who cried wolf. There is no wolf except the one you have conjured up in your mind.

It is almost impossible to reply to your repeated warnings without offending you. Anything short of full agreement upsets you, so I can safely predict that you will be upset for as long as you keep making these ridiculous predictions. The more outlandish the claim, the more evidence that is required to sustain it. You offer none. All we get is your fear fed by your overactive imagination.

[dublinbluray108]

When certain types of people wait for a favourite movie of theirs on services like APV or Netflix only to find that it is gone months later. What happens next for them? I heard from one person using Prime Video in Ireland who had saved a fair bit of movies on his watchlist only to find that they all miraculously disappeared out of sight. It was noted to this person that the movie selection from the service in this country is not worth it. It is only worth paying for it if you want to watch TV shows.

Amazon have maybe done this to customers using Prime Video in other parts of the world. The customers should rethink about how this may give them some form of security in making their own decision. The idea that a person should be 'wholly' dependent on a couple of streaming services to get your fix of movies & television should think seriously about their thought or opinions on the subject.

Those who are wholly dependent on these services should learn a valuable lesson from other people that unlike them they will not be completely happy with their own choices made in their lives. People who are pro digital in this instance should be listening to valid counter arguments about how these services can fail to live up to people's expectations of what it can provide to them to give them their entertainment fix.

I think people who are anti-physical media are giving off vibes to others of having unfair advantages in how they consume their preferred material. They are not there to fully understand how other people are having serious problems when trying to resolve issues of not watching stuff when it suits them.

People who use both physical & digital can have the ability to use both when it suits them. I'm not fully sure what views they express on either version of media. I would say that people in this instances try & make attempts to balance one view against the other in how they can become happy with their choices.

People are who pro physical & anti digital purely want the best picture & sound via hard copies. They clearly have the best choice in terms of quality & volume of content that is available to them through regular periods of the day. They might say that streaming services doesn't even largely mirror what they want in terms of consistent quality. Others who were pro physical may switch to streaming services for a small amount of time to complement their own choices.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by dublinbluray108

When certain types of people wait for a favourite movie of theirs on services like APV or Netflix only to find that it is gone months later. What happens next for them? I heard from one person using Prime Video in Ireland who had saved a fair bit of movies on his watchlist only to find that they all miraculously disappeared out of sight. It was noted to this person that the movie selection from the service in this country is not worth it. It is only worth paying for it if you want to watch TV shows.

Amazon have maybe done this to customers using Prime Video in other parts of the world. The customers should rethink about how this may give them some form of security in making their own decision. The idea that a person should be 'wholly' dependent on a couple of streaming services to get your fix of movies & television should think seriously about their thought or opinions on the subject.

Those who are wholly dependent on these services should learn a valuable lesson from other people that unlike them they will not be completely happy with their own choices made in their lives. People who are pro digital in this instance should be listening to valid counter arguments about how these services can fail to live up to people's expectations of what it can provide to them to give them their entertainment fix.

I think people who are anti-physical media are giving off vibes to others of having unfair advantages in how they consume their preferred material. They are not there to fully understand how other people are having serious problems when trying to resolve issues of not watching stuff when it suits them.

People who use both physical & digital can have the ability to use both when it suits them. I'm not fully sure what views they express on either version of media. I would say that people in this instances try & make attempts to balance one view against the other in how they can become happy with their choices.

People are who pro physical & anti digital purely want the best picture & sound via hard copies. They clearly have the best choice in terms of quality & volume of content that is available to them through regular periods of the day. They might say that streaming services doesn't even largely mirror what they want in terms of consistent quality. Others who were pro physical may switch to streaming services for a small amount of time to complement their own choices.

Also, don’t forget films from various companies are going to be split up into several subscription services so that won’t be s option for movie fans either unless a person is willing to pay for seven or eight subscriptions.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

One can see my equipment list by clicking the RED in my signature line but I will do a short recap for you. I use a true 4K (4096) projector with a 133" scope screen in a dedicated home theater room with 100% light control. Floors, walls and ceiling are very low light reflecting surfaces and have been treated to have a low RT60 down to 500 Hz. The sound system has a dedicated Dolby Atmos/DTS:X processor setup and uses 13 loudspeakers driven by 6 stereo and 2 mono audio amplifiers. The system is capable of over 3,600 watts of audio power. I have a dedicated 30 amp AC for equipment, a semi dedicated 20 amp AC for sub-woofers and a dedicated 15 amp AC for lighting. My setup is modest by some standards but exceeds what many others have. Remember my comment about Einstein and the law of relativity?

Because you said you were a vet I tried my best to educate you a little about audio and video quality so you would stop making ridiculous post here and having folks laugh at you. In all my years of BBSing (private, CompuServe, AOL, numerous internet BBS) you are the second person I have dealt with that appeared to be incapable of learning anything. I would like you to prove me wrong, the ball is in your court!

Your home theater is worthy and causes one to break the second "thou shall not covet" commandment. It must be awesome to watch, and hear, a movie at your house!

It is that inability to learn anything, and from anyone, that makes it so difficult to have a conversation with him. Hard to tell if it is due to a cognitive impairment or just obstinance, but he has the latter in common with our resident prophet of doom.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Most peculiar; none of that is mentioned in the article that you linked to AND you still have not produced any data that shows either movies or TVs to be under any threat. All of these outcomes are but figments of your imagination. No one is "getting it" because there is NOTHING to support the absurd conclusions you draw.

Attention spans are not getting shorter; your fixation on repeating what has been scientifically disproven does not change that fact. You have no evidence, you dispute the science with nothing but your unqualified opinions and anecdotal observations of young people using their phones more often than you approve of and in ways that you dislike. This isn't a counter argument to the verified science; it is just your bias.

Smartphones and tablets have existed for several years, with roots going as far back as 1992. Over the last decade, smartphones have grown to become amazing computing devices with a plethora of features. During all of this time, TV shows, movies, video games for both consoles and computers, projectors, and TVs themselves have all thrived despite a wealth of entertainment being developed for mobile devices. They will continue to thrive even as more entertainment is offered for mobile devices. All of these things have co-existed for years now.

Suit yourself, ring that bell all you like, but you have already become the little boy who cried wolf. There is no wolf except the one you have conjured up in your mind.

It is almost impossible to reply to your repeated warnings without offending you. Anything short of full agreement upsets you, so I can safely predict that you will be upset for as long as you keep making these ridiculous predictions. The more outlandish the claim, the more evidence that is required to sustain it. You offer none. All we get is your fear fed by your overactive imagination.

Even the article mentions it. They talk of people hsveing less time and catching tv in their commute INSTEAD of th living room tv. But I digress. The main point is OBB is a very obvious way to put this stuff onto smartphones in little, organised bundles. It’s a technology that (imo) has been planned from the ground up for millennial and younger. It understands that attention spans are dwindling and the need to grab attention with short, dynamic stories will be essential going forward. It’s basically a incubator for short form content imo.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Even the article mentions it. They talk of people hsveing less time and catching tv in their commute INSTEAD of th living room tv. But I digress. The main point is OBB is a very obvious way to put this stuff onto smartphones in little, organised bundles. It’s a technology that (imo) has been planned from the ground up for millennial and younger. It understands that attention spans are dwindling and the need to grab attention with short, dynamic stories will be essential going forward. It’s basically a incubator for short form content imo.

The article just points out that many people are busy and that this content is aimed at providing them with some entertainment as they commute to their job or, just as likely, to one of their many jobs. It is rather difficult to watch one's TV during one's commute to work.

It has nothing to do with attention spans, which are NOT dwindling, and the article does not make that assertion- that is your little added tidbit; it has everything to do with providing entertainment to people who are very busy and very mobile. Entertaining busy people on the go is just another market to develop and that is ALL that is happening here. It is not the harbinger of doom that you insist it to be.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

The article just points out that many people are busy and that this content is aimed at providing them with some entertainment as they commute to their job or, just as likely, to one of their many jobs. It is rather difficult to watch one's TV during one's commute to work.

It has nothing to do with attention spans, which are NOT dwindling, and the article does not make that assertion- that is your little added tidbit; it has everything to do with providing entertainment to people who are very busy and very mobile. Entertaining busy people on the go is just another market to develop and that is ALL that is happening here. It is not the harbinger of doom that you insist it to be.

You honestly don't see the threat in this? Or are you just stuck on a default answer now?

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

You honestly don't see the threat in this? Or are you just stuck on a default answer now?

No evidence= no threat. Your predictions never change, so why would my reply to them?

You: "Fill-in-the-blank" will be the end of movies and TVs!

Me: Supporting evidence? Still have none, I see. Case dismissed...again.

I am hardly alone in doing so.

I choose to be optimistic; you choose to be afraid. I have evidence to support my outlook while you only have your fevered imagination fueling yours.

[Groot]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

You honestly don't see the threat in this? Or are you just stuck on a default answer now?

All it does is make an existing product focused on individual stories, like a re-cap. It's not going to change the entire dynamic of the existing, full show.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Groot

All it does is make an existing product focused on individual stories, like a re-cap. It's not going to change the entire dynamic of the existing, full show.

It will if these short form cut down stories get more viewing time than their long form equivalents. The industry will look at those stats and come to the conclusion it’s working. We will then see a focus on more of that at the expense of great, long form entertainment.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I keep saying it and no one is getting it.

That alone would tell a rational person volumes.

Instead of questioning all of us, maybe you need to question yourself? Why exactly is it that no one shares your fears? Why is it that no one agrees with you?

Which is more likely, that ALL of us are wrong in rejecting your conclusions or that you are wrong in drawing them? Sadly, I likely know which conclusion you will make here.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

It will if these short form cut down stories get more viewing time than their long form equivalents. The industry will look at those stats and come to the conclusion it’s working. We will then see a focus on more of that at the expense of great, long form entertainment.

You are long on the "ifs" and entirely short on the evidence.

[Forestt]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

It will if these short form cut down stories get more viewing time than their long form equivalents. The industry will look at those stats and come to the conclusion it’s working. We will then see a focus on more of that at the expense of great, long form entertainment.

The industry might also look at other stats:

- The popularity of series/shows the last 10 years and the main reason why Netflix is so popular. All over the world!
- Halloween just broke a box office record. People still visit the cinema!
- Huge story driven games with 30+ hours of story are selling better then ever. For example Spider-Man, God of War and the internet is hyped for Red Dead Redemption 2 at the moment, which will be out this week.

Why does it seems that you are always highlighting the negative things or make small things a big danger for the future? Why the ongoing fear?

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Steedeel, here is the problem with your predictions and concerns...


With the common debates on the digital vs physical media that this thread is intended for, among the talking points is often the money that each form is making (baring in mind that this does not include money being made by cable and satellite services, etc.). While physical has been in gradual decline, it still makes enough money to warrant it's continued existence.

My main concern is smaller films and such not getting physical releases, the long term ownership/access to digitally purchases content, etc. But I digress, as this is besides the point of this particular post.

The point is that whether we are talking about physical discs, digital movie/TV show purchases, digital streaming services like Netflix and Hulu, traditional broadcast TV, cable/satellite TV, movie theaters, DVD and Blu-Ray sales, etc... All of these things have one HUGE thing in common. Regardless of distribution method, they are ALL offering movies and/or TV shows in traditional common lengths, formats, and running times.

When all of these things are combined, we are talking A LOT of money being made altogether, regardless of which subset of these things is more profitable than the others.

And while with streaming services, etc., people can watch many of these things on their laptops, tablets, phones, etc., the vast majority still primarily watch these things on a television set.


While younger people/millenials are probably much more apt to watch things on their phones and the like than most older generations, most of them have still grown up in houses with TVs and so forth. They likely do both. I'm sure even millenials get together and watch movies on TVs in their homes.


Do you realize how much money all of these companies would stand to lose by abandoning traditional television and movies? In order for such a move to be worth while, short form media over portable devices would not only have to be successful, but would have to replace all of those other collective aforementioned methods of distribution and at least match if not surpass their collective profitability in order to take over. And even then, it would only mean the death of those other things would occur only if they aren't making enough money to warrant continuing to exist. Even in the **extremely unlikely** scenario that such short form, mobile-aimed content were to take over in term of being the most profitable by a wide margin, it would require all other formats and distribution methods to become extremely unprofitable to the point of not being worthwhile to support.


The evidence does not show this as being an issue. In the same time that smart phones have become common place, the average size of TVs in people's homes has vastly increased. At the same time that these companies are now looking into making short-form content, we are seeing the resurrection and revival of old TV series like Roseanne/The Conners and Murphy Brown, which are clearly not aimed at teens and 20-somethings.


I don't see this mobile-focused future ever happening anywhere near on the level that you seem to believe it will. And honestly, as extraordinarily unlikely as that is to ever happen at all, if by some off chance it were to happen, it would take decades of a gradual shift in that direction for it to occur. Most of us likely wouldn't even be alive by the time that would have even the most remote of chances of happening. So you really have nothing to worry about in terms of your preferred manner of movie viewing being threatened.


Besides, you are already a niche within a niche anyway. You game regularly on a VR headset, something that hasn't really taken over home gaming in a huge way. You have a projector for movie viewing, which is awesome, but is no where near as common as other people having a TV of some size or another to watch their movies on. Yet despite these things being niches, you still have them. I certainly don't see projectors going anywhere.


Honestly while you don't phrase it in these terms, I think on at least some level, it's less that you really think these things are going to take over to the point of you losing access to watching movies in the manner that you prefer, and instead it is more you just being really annoyed that anyone is watching content on their phones at all, even when it has no impact on you and how you view movies what-so-ever.

[Groot]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

It will if these short form cut down stories get more viewing time than their long form equivalents. The industry will look at those stats and come to the conclusion it’s working. We will then see a focus on more of that at the expense of great, long form entertainment.

But you need the other stories that form the other stories? Why would you care about Y & Z's drama if you have no idea about A & B's motives? You can do highlights because you're aware of the narrative and story and watch the full thing later. Otherwise, it becomes a nonsensical mess unless you watch everyone's 15-20 minute highlights, which at that point you've watched the entire episode anyway thereby making this pointless.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by Vilya

It must be awesome to watch, and hear, a movie at your house!

Thanks for that.

It is that inability to learn anything, and from anyone, that makes it so difficult to have a conversation with him. Hard to tell if it is due to a cognitive impairment or just obstinance, but he has the latter in common with our resident prophet of doom.

I almost get the impression that he is a masochistic.

For Steedeel, he appears to be afraid of what the future holds for feature length film. I understand some of his viewpoints, does not mean I agree or disagree with them. In general, I skip over post about predictions. Many years ago I was really concerned about how films were made and some of my concerns came true. The good part is, IMHO, many good movies continue to be made.

I firmly believe if feature length films continue to be profitable then they will continue to be made. Same with physical media.

I have more BD and UHD BD titles than any other format I have owned and my library continues to grow!

I do read Media Play News (formerly known as Home Media Magazine), High Def Digest and The Digital Bits almost everyday and high def disc news from time to time.

[Bethany]

I'm disappointed with Best Buy. My local store used to have aisles of blu rays and DVDs to choose from. Now there is only one, mostly of new releases. Sad.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Bethany

I'm disappointed with Best Buy. My local store used to have aisles of blu rays and DVDs to choose from. Now there is only one, mostly of new releases. Sad.

Best Buy stores have been a disappointment for years. It varies by store location. My local store still has 4 full aisles of discs plus a display of new releases by the front entrance.

Shop online, better selection, very convenient, and easy to qualify for free shipping, too.

Or drive to a better store as you are in the "Middle of Nowhere" afterall.