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

[stonesfan129]

Speaking of film, I am still curious why Christopher Nolan uses 70mm IMAX film. The cost has to be enormous and those film reels look like they need a moving company to bring them in. Why not just shoot digitally at like 6K or 8K? I am pretty sure they have cameras that can do that like the ARRI Alexa for instance.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by stonesfan129

Speaking of film, I am still curious why Christopher Nolan uses 70mm IMAX film. The cost has to be enormous and those film reels look like they need a moving company to bring them in. Why not just shoot digitally at like 6K or 8K? I am pretty sure they have cameras that can do that like the ARRI Alexa for instance.

We have many forum members who all seem to know more about film making than Christopher Nolan does, despite their substantial lack of comparative success in this arena. Armchair experts all.

I'm not saying that you are among his critics, but people here love to Monday morning quarterback his decisions.

I can only assume that Mr. Nolan has his reasons, technical, aesthetic, or both.

[cheez avenger]

Disney says streaming is now its 'number one priority'

Disney’s 2019 Q1 earnings report on Tuesday included a line never before seen in Disney earnings reports: direct-to-consumer and international. In other words, Disney is now breaking out its over-the-top streaming business. (Disney beat expectations on revenue and profit and shares popped 2%.)

Disney’s DTC business, for now, includes its majority ownership in BAM Tech (the spun-out video business of Major League Baseball Advanced Media), its majority ownership of Hulu (Disney previously owned 33% but got another 33% in its 21st Century Fox acquisition), and its ESPN over-the-top product ESPN+. It will also include its highly anticipated Disney over-the-top product, Disney+.

This division brought in $918 million in revenue in the first quarter and lost $136 million due to investments in ESPN+ and Disney+, partially offset by “increases in subscription and advertising revenue” at Hulu.

In total, the Direct-to-Consumer and International component contributed just 6% of Disney’s overall revenue in the quarter.

But it’s now the most important business at all of Disney. CEO Bob Iger said so in plain terms on the earnings call, and reiterated it in the email he sends to all 200,000 Disney employees after every earnings report: Disney’s direct-to-consumer business, he wrote, “remains our number one priority.”

Make no mistake: Iger is talking about Disney+, and indeed, where the business conversation every Disney earnings report used to center on ESPN and how many cable subscribers it had lost, the focus has now shifted to whatever scant details Iger shares each quarter about what Disney+ will look like.

So, what do we actually know about Disney+ so far?

ESPN+ has amassed two million paying subscribers nine months after launching, Iger revealed. That product has been an obvious testing grounds for Disney+ and is powered on the back end by BAM Tech, “which has proved to be reliably stable during peak live streaming consumption,” Iger said on the call. Disney+ will run on the same tech.

Disney+ will have a range of exclusive original content at launch from every creative unit at Disney: Disney Animation, Pixar, Marvel, and Lucasfilm. That means Star Wars and Marvel content. And Iger added, “We look forward to leveraging National Geographic to provide even more unique content for Disney+.”

The launch of Disney+ will mean Netflix losing a vast library of Disney content all at once, and it will mean future Disney movies no longer end up on Netflix, beginning this year with “Captain Marvel,” the company revealed.

This has turned the Disney+ launch into a battle with Netflix, and indeed, Netflix is already building up its defenses in children’s and animated content so as not to lose subscribers like families when Disney+ launches.

Thus the biggest question has become: can Disney+ pull subscribers from Netflix, or if not, can it get people to pay for yet another OTT platform?

Most analysts say yes. And the best reason to be bullish is Disney’s unmatched library of intellectual property: franchises from Marvel, Star Wars, and Pixar.

“We think that the secular trends continue to favor the emergence of all of these over-the-top platforms, ESPN+ and Disney+ included,” says CFRA Research analyst Tuna Amobi. “Remember, we’re not just talking about the U.S. but also the international markets, where you’ve got very, very low penetration... That’s why, when you think about Disney+ and the potential to take this around the world, I do believe that the pie is big enough for Netflix, and Disney streaming, and all of these emergent players to continue to grow and pressure the traditional ecosystem of subscribers.”

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/d...142004998.html

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by cheez avenger

Disney says streaming is now its 'number one priority'

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/d...142004998.html

So long as it is not their ONLY priority, I remain unconcerned.

Many subscribers to subscription streaming do not purchase content, anyway, disc or digital, so the impact on those of us who do buy it will likely be negligible. SVOD customers are mostly just renters; they buy infrequently if at all.

It is not a big surprise that Disney would consider their first ever entry into the world of streaming providers to be their greatest priority. Would anyone expect them to say anything less? They have sunk a lot of money into this and they need for it to do very well. Of course they are going to promote it aggressively.

The global average internet speed is just 9.1 Mbps, so relying on the global market for growth might take awhile yet.

"global average internet speed as measured by 163 million individual speed tests rose by 23 percent. The average broadband connection now clocks in at 9.1Mbps."

It's even worse in China, where everyone wants to expand. Their average speed is just 2.4 Mbps.

The U.S. is in 20th place worldwide for internet speeds with average speeds of just under 26 Mbps. If you look ONLY at those with access to fixed broadband internet, the average is 95.25 Mbps, but a large swath of the U.S. has far lower speed internet access and the overall average is just under 26 Mbps.

https://bgr.com/2018/07/10/average-i...-vs-the-world/
Article date July 10, 2018

The streaming provider marketplace is getting ever more crowded; Disney's entry into the fray might be a boon for them, but it could also be a bane for some of the others. How many different services will the consumer subscribe to and to which ones?

Personally, if I were to try Disney+, I would likely drop Netflix. Netflix's selection is mostly unremarkable crap despite its vast quantity. Disney+ is far more likely to have content worth watching. I might play them against each other, bouncing from one free trial offer to another, switching from one SVOD to another perpetually chasing their marketing incentives. I have already done this in the past and I have received months of free service by pitting one SVOD against the other. More SVODs means more ways to take advantage of them.

[alchav21]

Originally Posted by cheez avenger

Disney says streaming is now its 'number one priority'

Originally Posted by Vilya

So long as it is not their ONLY priority, I remain unconcerned.

Many subscribers to subscription streaming do not purchase content, anyway, disc or digital, so the impact on those of us who do buy it will likely be negligible. SVOD customers are mostly just renters; they buy infrequently if at all.

It is not a big surprise that Disney would consider their first ever entry into the world of streaming providers to be their greatest priority. Would anyone expect them to say anything less? They have sunk a lot of money into this and they need for it to do very well. Of course they are going to promote it aggressively.

The global average internet speed is just 9.1 Mbps, so relying on the global market for growth might take awhile yet.

That Rude Awakening is starting to happen, everyone is jumping on the Streaming Bandwagon and there is only so much room on there. Someone has to fall off, and no one wants too.

Everyone is banking on Wireless 5G, but for true Bandwidth Fiber is needed. AT&T and Verizon has this capability, but even they think that Wireless 5G will be enough. Bandwidth comes with a lot of baggage, and I think only Fiber has the Capacity to accomplish this!

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by alchav21

That Rude Awakening is starting to happen, everyone is jumping on the Streaming Bandwagon and there is only so much room on there. Someone has to fall off, and no one wants too.

As much as you love all things streaming; why do you insist on describing it as a "rude" awakening? It should be your idea of heaven.

Personally, I hold heaven to a far higher standard.

[alchav21]

Originally Posted by Vilya

As much as you love all things streaming; why do you insist on describing it as a "rude" awakening? It should be your idea of heaven.

Personally, I hold heaven to a far higher standard.

I think Streaming is Heaven, but then I feel Streaming from a Disc or the Internet is the same. The Rude Awakening I'm talking about is when people will realize this. The Studios never liked letting go of their Content, and dragged their feet on Disc delivery. They have more control on Streaming, but then how much control is needed for watching a Movie a few times. A format only last a few years before being upgraded, so we are always behind that curve and will never catch up!

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by alchav21

I think Streaming is Heaven, but then I feel Streaming from a Disc or the Internet is the same. The Rude Awakening I'm talking about is when people will realize this. The Studios never liked letting go of their Content, and dragged their feet on Disc delivery. They have more control on Streaming, but then how much control is needed for watching a Movie a few times. A format only last a few years before being upgraded, so we are always behind that curve and will never catch up!

I know that you think that data transfer from a disc is the same as streaming from a remote server via the internet. It isn't the same at all and the differences have been explained to you many times, and by many people, but there is no convincing you otherwise. This is where you will insert your "it's all digital" mantra, I suspect.

All intellectual property owners want to maintain control over their content. I do not feel that feet are being dragged regarding disc delivery. I get discs delivered every week I'll have you know.

Some titles come to digital before disc, but the time difference between them is usually small. The occasional short delay doesn't faze me in the least.

For an avid movie collector like myself, the real control provided by actual tangible physical ownership is one of the greatest assets offered by physical media. I insist upon it when purchasing movies and TV shows. Having this control means much more than not having to worry about movies disappearing from a digital collection, temporarily or permanently, it means that revisionism can not occur. The version I bought on disc can not be modified in any way. The music will never change, nothing will get edited out due to political correctness mood swings, or for any other reason. The version I bought is the version that I keep.

Physical formats evole. DVD is 22 years old this year; blu-ray is 13 this year, and 4k discs will celebrate their 3rd birthday next month. We are getting a new physical format roughly every 9-10 years. The likelihood of there being an 8K format, digital or physical, seems improbable as things stand now; there's essentially no content in 8K to deliver via any method.

Technology continues to advance and we are likely going to see many marvelous innovations across every facet of our lives. There's nothing rude about it at all; these new discoveries will be amazing!

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by alchav21

That Rude Awakening is starting to happen, everyone is jumping on the Streaming Bandwagon and there is only so much room on there. Someone has to fall off, and no one wants too.

Everyone is banking on Wireless 5G, but for true Bandwidth Fiber is needed. AT&T and Verizon has this capability, but even they think that Wireless 5G will be enough. Bandwidth comes with a lot of baggage, and I think only Fiber has the Capacity to accomplish this!

Fibre that simply hasn’t been delivered. In my opinion, all we have had is hype and no backup. Like Vilya says, a large part of your country can’t even access fibre. I think 5G will be the same. It’s all empty promises and buzzwords imo.

By the way, you are jumping on the streaming bandwagon. A few months ago, it was all Digital HD. Now that you realise that particular future isn’t so rosey, you have switched tact.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by alchav21

I think Streaming is Heaven, but then I feel Streaming from a Disc or the Internet is the same. The Rude Awakening I'm talking about is when people will realize this. The Studios never liked letting go of their Content, and dragged their feet on Disc delivery. They have more control on Streaming, but then how much control is needed for watching a Movie a few times. A format only last a few years before being upgraded, so we are always behind that curve and will never catch up!

Dragged their feet on disc? They were booking two holidaysa year in advance with DVD?

[Steedeel]

I follow sports tech a lot and one thing that I have noticed over the last year is social media having a bigger and bigger presence with streaming live sports. At the moment, it’s just small packages but when the bidding wats start in 2021, I fully expect a huge bid for NFL and NBA rights from Facebook, Twitter or Amazon (through the twitch app).

Now, this is a major development. Why? Well, NFL have apparently indicated that they want to sell rights to their live games to a streaming service with social media capability to allow live chat, clickable live stats, and imo, a general ‘gamification’ Of the sport. These interactive elements are for the smartphone, tablet or laptop. Twitch uses ‘extensions’ which I believe are NOT transferable to the tv screen. Twitter (if they win rights) have just got rid of their tv streaming apps. However, they too would need to incoperate live chat, live stats and all that other stuff. Same for my personal favourite to win the bidding rights, Facebook. They might not be the most popular, but NFL I understand is a huge deal for you guys in the U.S.

These big boys have been circling sports for a while now but I think it’s a certainty that they will win rights in 2022. This means that the main reason for millions to own a tv (live sport) will evaporate.

Some on here have always said the sport alone is enough reason to keep their tv screen. Well, the chances are they won’t be able to use it for sport if those companies win the NFL rights. If we can only watch on mobile devices, what choice is there? We can cast it you say? No, no we can’t. I noticed the NBA minor leagues that Twitch broadcast didn’t have that option. That’s because of the interactive elements and I believe that’s the same reason they couldn’t put it on the Fire Stick or Amazon labelled TV sets. It seems the future of sports is being built to capture the young people who have grown up on gaming and snapchat (I’m sure, NFL used that exact term).

You guys paint the picture that kids and teens will switch to the TV set when they get older and hsve less free time. Well, not if services like these are built exclusively for young people with interactive live chat and all the other stuff social media fanatics (most young people) are so fascinated with. Overnight, we could go from access to live sport in our living room to no access unless we go the mobile route.

Penguin said I can’t see the woods for the trees? I think it’s the reverse. All these developments are setting up the structure that will dominate the landscape in years to come.


https://variety.com/2018/digital/fea...es-1202680323/

I have provided this link to give you guys a taste. It’s not a reactionary post as I have been aware of this stuff for a long time. Amazon in the U.K. have small package of streaming rights for our biggest sport (football) for example.

The vultures are circling.

[presidentevil3d]

streaming is good for convenience, and ill watch films on now and netflix that i wouldnt usually have done, saves the hassle of dvds and losing disks.
but if its a film i really want, id rather have it on blu ray, especially as most films i buy are 3D.

as much as i use streaming, with a disk you never get buffering, poor download quality, stuttering or titles being pulled/removed.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

These big boys have been circling sports for a while now but I think it’s a certainty that they will win rights in 2022. This means that the main reason for millions to own a tv (live sport) will evaporate.

First, welcome back! I am glad your hiatus was a brief one.

I knew in your first paragraph that you would make this conclusion. I do not believe that the NFL, or any of the other major sports, will stop airing their games on TV. As this won't happen, it will thus have no impact on the desire to own a TV. I doubt that anyone believes this could happen but you, but at least you gave a "when" with this prediction.

Watching the "big game" on the big screen is as much a tradition now as watching the game itself. It isn't a tradition for me as I have almost no interest in watching sports; I think sports are for playing, not watching, but I digress.

You also fail to consider that the NFL and other leagues can make multiple agreements as to how and where their games are viewed. They could make both a TV broadcast agreement and another with social media gimmickry for mobile devices. Social media functionality could be added to the TV as well. It does not have to be one or the other. The sports leagues are just exploring more ways to make more money.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

First, welcome back! I am glad your hiatus was a brief one.

I knew in your first paragraph that you would make this conclusion. I do not believe that the NFL, or any of the other major sports, will stop airing their games on TV. As this won't happen, it will thus have no impact on the desire to own a TV. I doubt that anyone believes this could happen but you, but at least you gave a "when" with this prediction.

Watching the "big game" on the big screen is as much a tradition now as watching the game itself. It isn't a tradition for me as I have almost no interest in watching sports; I think sports are for playing, not watching, but I digress.

You also fail to consider that the NFL and other leagues can make multiple agreements as to how and where their games are viewed. They could make both a TV broadcast agreement and another with social media gimmickry for mobile devices. It does not have to be one or the other.

Twitter or Facebook could buy complete rights though. What then? Also, I don’t think Twitch web based extensions can be adapted for tv. Twitch is a huge streaming service.

Thanks by the way.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Twitter or Facebook could buy complete rights though. What then?

They can only buy "complete rights" if the sports leagues want to sell them exclusive rights. I see no economic advantage for the leagues to remove their games from the most preferred viewing method that they have: the big screen TV. Sports fans would be furious if they could not watch their beloved games on their giant screens. The loss of TV ad revenue alone would be gigantic. Sports bars would be devastated.

Those social media toys could likely be added to TVs with a simple firmware update, too, or incorporated on future models, if people actually want them. There is just no financial reason to remove their content from TVs and restrict it to viewing on mobile devices only. They would anger their fans immensely, they would lose TV revenue, and they would lose TV advertising revenue. That's three very big negatives and all of them would severely impact their bottom line. It makes no business sense.

I'm not a sports fan, but the ones that I do know are a VERY vocal bunch. Here's looking at you! They would all but riot if their beloved games disappeared from the TV. I can see those Green Bay Packer fans in their cheese wedge hats carrying torches and pitchforks already!

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

They can only buy "complete rights" if the sports leagues want to sell them exclusive rights. I see no economic advantage for the leagues to remove their games from the most preferred viewing method that they have: the big screen TV. Sports fans would be furious if they could not watch their beloved games on their giant screens. The loss of TV ad revenue alone would be gigantic. Sports bars would be devastated.

Those social media toys could likely be added to TVs with a simple firmware update, too, or incorporated on future models, if people actually want them. There is just no financial reason to remove their content from TVs and restrict it to viewing on mobile devices only. They would anger their fans immensely, they would lose TV revenue, and they would lose TV advertising revenue. That's three very big negatives and all of them would severely impact their bottom line. It makes no business sense.

I'm not a sports fan, but the ones that I do know are a VERY vocal bunch. Here's looking at you! They would all but riot if their beloved games disappeared from the TV. I can see those Green Bay Packer fans in their cheese wedge hats carrying torches and pitchforks already!

Do you at least agree though, if it did happen, it would potentially kill off the tv screen?

[Vilya]

I only reinstated Netflix in January and they already hit me with a price hike beginning in March. I have gift cards on my account that keep me paid up until April; can you believe that anyone who knows me would actually give me Netflix gift cards? Anyway, I will have to decide in April if they are worth $15.99 per month. Right now I am inclined to say "no." Lots of content, sure, but most of what I have seen of it so far is dreck.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Do you at least agree though, if it did happen, it would potentially kill off the tv screen?

It would kill off the annual Super Bowl sales events for TVs, and that would be a damn shame, but I still believe that people will always want to watch movies and TV shows on the biggest and best screen that they can buy.

So, no, I do not believe that it would "kill off" the TV, but it would remove a highly desired usage of them. But again, I do not believe that your premise will happen, so this is entirely a fantastical "what if" scenario to me.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

It would kill off the annual Super Bowl sales events for TVs, and that would be a damn shame, but I still believe that people will always want to watch movies and TV shows on the biggest and best screen that they can buy.

So, no, I do not believe that it would "kill off" the TV, but it would remove a highly desired usage of them. But again, I do not believe that your premise will happen, so this is entirely a fantastical "what if" scenario to me.

Ok, so let’s say Twitter wins the rights to NFL in 2022. What happens? What is your view? Bear in mind Twitter have just disposed of some of their tv apps.

[Steedeel]

NFL viewing figures have dropped for the last two years also.