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

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Dynamo, Octagon etc.. can you guys remember my discussion about speed watching content two years ago? I was reading a article today that stated 19% of the pod cast audience now listen to podcasts sped up (at least 1.25).
19%, wow. That was from just four years ago when a small section of people did that. My argument was that speed watching will carry on that trend with the likes of YouTube and Netflix through a browser hosting the option to speed up content from 1.25-2.00.

It seems I’m not as crazy as you guys made out. Transfer those podcast numbers to video in say, four to five years and the scenario I described starts to come true. Declining attention spans combined with more and more video content means visual content will go the same way as podcasts. A huge percentage of people will be watching films and tv shows in fast forward (with pitch correction) by 2030 imo. Maybe most of the population.

The Sky is indeed falling. The race to get through content for millennials and younger is going to screw it for all of us.

How will those people hurt your ability to watch things at the original speed? Watching content at a higher speed is completely optional and no provider will ever have any reason to make it mandatory.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

How will those people hurt your ability to watch things at the original speed?

It will be phased out eventually or film and tv producers will think “what the heck’ and just give us ten minute slots of entertainment. If the vast majority of people want to fast forward through content,there isn’t even a future for film.

Maybe future TVs will be only able to play faster speeds in much the same way that motion smoothing is forced on some TVs.

[alchav21]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

You missed, again! The point was to show you there was little difference between fiber and cable.

The same with streaming, once there is a consistent ISP data flow that exceeds your streaming data rate then increasing you ISP data rate beyond that will not do anything for your streaming. Below is a problem that occurred with my ISP recently. Note the prime time slowdown on 2/28, a speed test between me and my ISP showed about 60 Mbps during this same time period. That is the reason I tell people to use the Netflix test, during prime time or look at their Netflix speed, while the desired content is playing, using the diagnostics display if their device has that feature.

Wendell you know I have a Telco background, and I connected a lot of the Companies in the Silicon Valley. There is a big difference in Copper and Fiber, Fiber transmits at the Speed of Light. There are many factors in the way Data is transported, in Packets now and very dependent on the Route. You brought up the CDN's, the Packets take the fastest direct route from the origin to the destination. Then yes there is the Last Mile and how Fiber and Copper is distributed. Copper is fanned out and Balanced to give a certain BW, that can draw on the Capacity with heavy users. Fiber is Engineered to give a fixed BW, and can easily be changed remotely with the circuit packets in the equipment. So yes FTTH is way better than Copper!

[veritas]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

Are any of the digital supporters ever going to comment about the censorship that happened with The Simpsons recently? Are do they know that will just make streaming look bad so they'll just keep ignoring it and act like nothing happened?

so are they just going to straight pull it from peoples collections? At least they cant do that with dvd copies already made.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by alchav21

There is a big difference in Copper and Fiber, Fiber transmits at the Speed of Light.

Wrong, again! In general, most fiber that is used has a propagation velocity of 69%, hallow core fiber can have a propagation velocity of >99% but is limited in its use. All refereed to the speed of light in a vacuum.

So yes FTTH is way better than Copper!

In the context of delivering a 16 Mbps UHD stream to the home copper is way more than capable. Even an old DOCSIS 2 modem can deliver 40 Mbps or 2 16 Mbps UHD streams. For a properly done ISP (cable or fiber) delivering a 16 Mbps UHD stream should not be a problem. The speed problem is usually between the ISP and the CDN. It is for this very reason Netflix came up with cache computers to be placed in a ISP plant which only helps if the desired content is in the cache.

You may want to look here at what can be done over cable before making more of your ridiculous statements. I would wager most cable ISP’s are using DOCSIS 3.0 modems, my small ISP tells me they are implementing DOCSIS 3.1 modems this year.

The rest of your post is so lame it does not warrant comment.

FWIW, we were using fiber way before FTTH was in use. We had FTTP from TimeWarner and AT&T, fiber was used between the studio cameras and the CCU’s, between the mic/line stage box and audio mixing desk, between uplink satellite dish and control unit, downlink satellite dishes and receivers, etc., etc.

I bet you do not know if you are using single mode or multi mode fiber. To know for sure I bet you will have to contact your provider who may or may not give you the correct information.

[mrveggieman]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Cable might suck for you, it doesn’t for me. I get nice crisp 4K that doesn’t have to buffer or degrade if there are drops in my internet connection. I can record six programmes at the same time, watch live sport in 4K and have access to stacks of on demand content. Soon the interface will have voice search and also incoperate Netflix.

Not sure how a landline sucks either. It’s like saying a microwave oven sucks, or a fridge freezer sucks. It has a purpose.

Finally, once Disney and all the rest have jumped onboard, streaming will become cable 2.0

If you enjoy paying for the fancy vacations and private schools of the kids of Comcast shareholders do you but as far as the rest of us who don't like throwing away our hard earned money especially when there are other alternatives that do the job just as good if not better and cheaper, then yes cable tv sucks.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by mrveggieman

If you enjoy paying for the fancy vacations and private schools of the kids of Comcast shareholders do you but as far as the rest of us who don't like throwing away our hard earned money especially when there are other alternatives that do the job just as good if not better and cheaper, then yes cable tv sucks.

I’m from the U.K. it sounds like our options are way better. Subscription streaming is going to end up just the same as cable with five or six services all with exclusive, walled content. It will end up just as expensive if not more so. The dream of cord cutting and having unlimited buffets was exactly that.......a dream.

Anyone with any sense could see how it was going to play out.

[mrveggieman]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I’m from the U.K. it sounds like our options are way better. Subscription streaming is going to end up just the same as cable with five or six services all with exclusive, walled content. It will end up just as expensive if not more so. The dream of cord cutting and having unlimited buffets was exactly that.......a dream.

Anyone with any sense could see how it was going to play out.

I can't speak for the UK but here in the states cable/satellite tv downright sucks. I live in Atlanta which as you know is a decent size city and the only options for cable are Comcast or getting a satellite. Neither one of those options make financial sense for me. As far as streaming goes you can pick and chose exactly what you want w/o being forced to pay for filler that you don't. For example I have Sling TV for ESPN access and I pay $30 for that. My internet is also $30 from AT&T for a grand total of $60. If I tried to get TV and internet from Comcast I would be paying well over $150. If you are happy with your setup cool but over here most people hate their cable company and more would switch if they got over the fear of trying something new.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by mrveggieman

I can't speak for the UK but here in the states cable/satellite tv downright sucks. I live in Atlanta which as you know is a decent size city and the only options for cable are Comcast or getting a satellite. Neither one of those options make financial sense for me. As far as streaming goes you can pick and chose exactly what you want w/o being forced to pay for filler that you don't. For example I have Sling TV for ESPN access and I pay $30 for that. My internet is also $30 from AT&T for a grand total of $60. If I tried to get TV and internet from Comcast I would be paying well over $150. If you are happy with your setup cool but over here most people hate their cable company and more would switch if they got over the fear of trying something new.

I do t know how old you are but I can remember when you used to be able to pick individual channels on cable. ‘Pick and mix’ if you will. I honestly think subscription streaming will end up the same as cable/sat. Already we are seeing films being divided up with Disney owning Fox movies. Comcast/Sky will have Universal and AT&T will have Warner Brothers. If you love movies, you will need several packages and some of the best tv shows will also be divided. It will end up far worse than cable ever was.

[mrveggieman]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I do t know how old you are but I can remember when you used to be able to pick individual channels on cable. ‘Pick and mix’ if you will. I honestly think subscription streaming will end up the same as cable/sat. Already we are seeing films being divided up with Disney owning Fox movies. Comcast/Sky will have Universal and AT&T will have Warner Brothers. If you love movies, you will need several packages and some of the best tv shows will also be divided. It will end up far worse than cable ever was.

I'm 43 years old and I remember when my parents first ordered cable back in 1982. There has never been a time when I had cable that you can pick and chose your own packages besides from HBO and other movie channels. Before streaming if you wanted to watch sports that were not on regular TV you would either have to accept whatever garbage the cable company puts out there or do without.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by mrveggieman

I'm 43 years old and I remember when my parents first ordered cable back in 1982. There has never been a time when I had cable that you can pick and chose your own packages besides from HBO and other movie channels. Before streaming if you wanted to watch sports that were not on regular TV you would either have to accept whatever garbage the cable company puts out there or do without.

Never? We could pick and choose for a while. Oh well.

[mrveggieman]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Never? We could pick and choose for a while. Oh well.

Never. I told you that the cable systems over here are garbage.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Sony Pictures Store and now Paramount Movies (from an email)

March 18, 2019

Dear Paramount Movies Customer,

In light of the upcoming UltraViolet closure, we are making changes to ParamountMovies.com.

Beginning today, while you will still be able to redeem U.S. digital codes included in your DVD, Blu-ray™, and 4K UltraHD™ Paramount products, you will no longer be able to rent, buy, or playback movies through ParamountMovies.com.


To continue to view the movies you have already purchased or redeemed through ParamountMovies.com, you will need to access them through partners like VUDU or FandangoNOW by following these steps:

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

How will those people hurt your ability to watch things at the original speed? Watching content at a higher speed is completely optional and no provider will ever have any reason to make it mandatory.

Have you also considered much like streaming, everyone will just follow a trend? Ok, young people are speed watching content, we will start doing the same type of thing? Say, 10 years down the line when it’s far far more common.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Have you also considered much like streaming, everyone will just follow a trend? Ok, young people are speed watching content, we will start doing the same type of thing? Say, 10 years down the line when it’s far far more common.

No, that's ridiculous. There are plenty of activities that are popular that I have no interest in and no one is forcing me to do any of them.

[alchav21]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

Sony Pictures Store and now Paramount Movies (from an email)

Yes Wendell things are starting to shake out, Paramount Movies are still there but you can't play them on the Web Site. Sony Store is gone, but Sony Ultra is still there I accessed it last night and all my Movies are still there. MA Links all your Providers, and there is no problem there. Unlike Disc that is dying a slow death, here is a YouTube from John Campea:

The End Of Blu-Ray Is Near - Samsung Will No Longer Make New Players - YouTube

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by alchav21

Yes Wendell things are starting to shake out, Paramount Movies are still there but you can't play them on the Web Site. Sony Store is gone, but Sony Ultra is still there I accessed it last night and all my Movies are still there. MA Links all your Providers, and there is no problem there. Unlike Disc that is dying a slow death, here is a YouTube from John Campea:

The End Of Blu-Ray Is Near - Samsung Will No Longer Make New Players - YouTube

Who?

[Dynamo of Eternia]

I happened to watch that video last week.

I actually highly recommend it if you are in the mood for a good laugh.

That is about all that it is worth.

I'm not surprised that Alchav posted it here as some kind of supposed "evidence" to back up his ridiculous arguments, as a lot of the "logic" used in that video lines up with it.

In fact, I left a lengthy comment (what other kind would I make? ) on it breaking down all of the issues with it, and especially the absurd things that Robert (the guy on the right when all 3 of them are on screen) says throughout the video.

I put my comment in the spoiler tags below, but I do recommend watching the video before reading it (for anyone interested) for context.

[Show spoiler]

Long rant ahead (apologies for the length of this)...

First of all, Robert has almost no clue what he is talking about, he has some of his facts wrong, and he is making really asinine comparisons that make NO sense. I'm amazed that he is even capable of dressing himself considering the amount of BS and nonsense that he spewed out here (more on this further down).

There were a lot of issues with Samsung's Blu-Ray players. While having a major player leave the market isn't a good thing, it could be much worse. The only way physical media will die is if we stop supporting it. Digital content can be removed any time for any reason. Take the very recent announcement of the Michael Jackson episode of the Simpsons from season 3 being pulled from circulation in all forms. It's being pulled from airing on TV, from all digital platforms, and any future DVD print runs will no longer include it. This means that even if someone purchased the season digitally, it will be pulled and unless they bought it from a service that allows them to download it and they already have it downloaded, then they won't be able to stream it or (re)download it ever again. HOWEVER, all of the many, many already existing DVD copies will continue to have the episode intact, including the copy that I have in my collection.

In regards to Blu-Ray player sales dropping, that's not a good sign, but keep in mind that the technology has matured. There is very little that a new Blu-Ray players being made this year can offer over one made last year. So what is there really to promote in that sense? And with that being the case, people aren't likely to run out and buy a new player if the one that they already have is still running just fine. It actually makes sense for there to be fewer manufacturers of the players, but still players being made none the less.

Robert is most likely very wrong about there being a complete disappearance of physical media in the next 5 years. People have been making similar predictions for years and yet it is still here. I do think it will become more niche, but still exist. Keep in mind that the "bread and butter" that still sells the best are new release movies out of theaters. Do you think Disney is going to pass on making money from future Avengers movies and the like?

Before I go onto the other issues with what Robert said, one thing that I've always found to be semi-disingenuous when comparing digital vs physical revenue and profit is the inclusion of subscription streaming (this is not specific to this video, this is in general). Yes, I'm sure that having services like Netflix, with a plethora of on demand content that people can watch at any time is, of course, having an effect on sell through. This goes for both physical AND digital sell through. While it has been growing, digital sell through hasn't exactly been gaining by leaps and bounds. The reason why the inclusion of the money made from subscription streaming bugs me is because while it is "kind of" a substitute/supplement for the buying and renting of individual movie titles, it is also a substitute (for those who are "cord cutting") or supplement to people's cable and satellite services. Cable and satellite service revenue has never been included in these home media revenue numbers and comparisons, but subscription streaming is. And for people who are using those subscriptions in place of or in addition to cable/satellite, especially given many of these services having original programming, movies, etc. like a tv network, it's kind of a slippery slope of a comparison. And when you compare digital sell through to physical sell through, there isn't a huge gap in how much they are making

Getting back to the plethora of issues with the stuff Robert was saying:

He makes it sound like Blu-Ray specifically had this tremendous drop year over year. The $4.x billion number that he mentioned (with 14.x% drop compared to the prior year) was for physical media as a whole (DVD, Blu-Ray, 4K Blu-Ray, etc.), not just Blu-Ray. The biggest drop was with DVD by a VERY wide margin. Now while that is still not great news for physical media as a whole, the point is that Blu-Ray did relatively fine. There was about a 1% to 2% drop from 2017 to 2018. And that can at least in part be attributed to what movies came out. The lions share of physical media sales are in new releases of movies for the first time after their theatrical run. If one year simply has bigger movies that drive more sales than another, then of course there could be a drop from one year to the next. The reason why we are seeing DVD have such a big drop is because, while the biggest chunk of sales are of new released movies, when it comes to most any content that comes out on physical media, almost "any and all" of it comes out on DVD, while some content doesn't make it to Blu-Ray. Where DVD is having the biggest drop in sales is with all of the little piddly releases that still add up to a lot. Your random cheap DVDs of whatever random content, etc. (i.e. some kids DVD of random episodes of some old cartoon show as an example) Most of that stuff doesn't come out on Blu-ray. That is the kind of stuff being most impacted by streaming because rather than buying a few random DVDs of such content to keep around to have something to throw in for the kids or whatever, streaming substitutes that. Physical is gradually getting more focused in on the content that people really care about and want to keep and have ongoing access to. I don't deny that the decline will continue, but I don't see it being anywhere near as bad as Robert suggests, because the "meat and potatoes" releases will still sell in large enough numbers to justify the continued existence of physical media.

As for some of the ridiculous comparisons that he is making:

-The point about a 50GB Blu-Ray disc vs a 1 TB SD card. That comparison makes NO sense. Since people using digital are mainly streaming content, they aren't putting it on any kind of physical storage device like an SD card. An HD movie on Blu-Ray doesn't need more than 50GB to get the full benefit of the technology (4K Blu-Ray discs have a higher capacity of 66 GB). While most movies don't take up the ENTIRE disc, the file sizes are still larger compared to those of both digital downloads and digital streaming. While those formats continue to evolve and the quality can be rather good, a standard HD download or stream is going to have more compression and be more compromised than the standard Blu-Ray equivalent. The same goes for 4K downloads and streams relative to 4K discs. The existence of high capacity storage in small sized has no bearing on this in any way.

-The point about how much more "expensive" it supposedly is to make a Blu-Ray compared to pressing a vinyl disc. Jesus Christ, the mental gymnastics of this argument were astounding to say the least. The high cost that he was talking about was the cost of taking an older movie shot on film and properly transferring it to high quality 4K resolution FILE. Not disc - FILE. That costs exists regardless of whether the movie is going to be released on physical media, through digital streaming/download, or both. Even if physical media were to die off and be 100% replaced by streaming, that cost would not be eliminated when making a new master of an older movie and distributing it. The cost of pressing a vinyl record is not a comparison to this at all. A more apt comparison would be remastering an old recording of a song - which still would be cheaper since that would be only a few minutes of audio as opposed to ~2 hour of video and audio for a movie. Pressing a record is more akin to the actual manufacturing of DVDs, Blu-Rays, etc. And that is cheap. We are talking about less than $1 per disc (probably a lot less depending on the size of the production run).

Also, his comparison of assuming that everyone will follow Samsung in discontinuing Blu-Ray players because of what happened with the discontinuation of 3D TVs. 3D TVs never really took off in any major way. For a time most were sold because the TV included 3D anyway and not because most people were actually using it. Most people didn't want to have to wear glasses, so 3D and by extension the 3D Blu-Ray format never really took off. Since the inclusion of 3D in TVs added a decent cost to them and most people didn't care about it, it was removed. And even with that being the case, most players (including 4K players) still have compatibility with 3D discs since it's just a slight variation on the Blu-Ray format, and projectors are still made that can run 3D. Robert is comparing the extremely niche 3D format that most didn't use to Blu-Ray players and the Blu-Ray format in general, which by comparison has a MUCH larger following.

4K is simply the new standard and will not be removed from TVs. Blu-Ray is still doing well enough to justify the continued production of players by the companies still making them. And with both of those things being the case, while the 4K Blu-Ray format is relatively niche, since it doesn't suffer from the same set backs as 3D, and since manufacturing players that work with 4K Blu-Ray discs in addition to regular Blu-Ray discs doesn't really add all that much to the cost compared to making a regular Blu-Ray player (they mainly cost more for now to the consumer because it's newer tech that they can justify charging more for, and even then, prices have come down since the inception of the 4K disc format), there will be little reason not to include it.

Even if it gradually becomes more and more niche, physical media is still going to be here for quite a while.

[alchav21]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

I happened to watch that video last week.

I actually highly recommend it if you are in the mood for a good laugh.

That is about all that it is worth.

I'm not surprised that Alchav posted it here as some kind of supposed "evidence" to back up his ridiculous arguments, as a lot of the "logic" used in that video lines up with it.

Laugh all you want, but that Rude Awakening is starting to happen. Check out Sound & Vision.....New Blu-ray, DVD, but UHD 4K (Not)!

https://www.soundandvision.com/conte...blu-ray-or-not

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by alchav21

Laugh all you want, but that Rude Awakening is starting to happen. Check out Sound & Vision.....New Blu-ray, DVD, but UHD 4K (Not)!

https://www.soundandvision.com/conte...blu-ray-or-not

And... so what? Sure, I guess it stinks to some extent that some of those movies aren't getting 4K releases, but it is what it is.

Not that I'm planning on getting any of the titles listed, but if I were, I would just get regular Blu-Ray for titles that don't have a 4K option, as while I will opt for better quality when the option exists in the physical media that I buy, the control that I have with physical media is more important to me, which is why I'll still opt to buy a regular Blu-Ray over a 4K digital release.

And your post here really doesn't line up with what the guy in the video was saying, who was going on about Blu-Ray as a whole (not just 4K) going under and will supposedly be gone in 5 years, with most of his reasons and comparisons being ill-informed and nonsensical.


Besides, I've said it before and I'll say it again, when and if physical media stops being made in my lifetime, I'll still have access to the physical media that I have already purchased.

In addition to enjoying movies, I'm also a gamer, and I have many gaming consoles going from current ones to some that date as far back as the early 80s. I still play games on the older systems. We are talking about formats that had roughly 5 year life cycles before the next generation started on average. I'm still able to play those games. If a system stops working, there are options for repair and/or to obtain a replacement.

Given that I'm able to do this with games and systems that in some cases are over 30 years old and were on the market for comparatively shorter time periods than the DVD and Blu-Ray formats have been around, I'm really not worried about being unable to play my discs years down the road.

And the law of diminishing returns is very much at play here. There's only so much they can do to give us better picture or audio quality that is noticeably and substantially better than the best that is available today. I'm not saying that there is no further room for improvement, but when you compare the uptick in quality from the time that VHS was the dominating format up to what is available today, it is highly unlikely that gradual future improvements over time will offer even remotely as big of a leap as that.



You are little more than a troll at this point with all of the nonsense that you spew with pretty much every post that you make. Even many of the people on the pro-digital distribution side think you are nuts.