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

[sapiendut]

You never know until they’re being altered. Once it’s altered then you can no longer have the unaltered version anymore. That and the fact AV quality have always been inferior than the physical version.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by The_Donster

Yes, but how many movies, and to a lesser extent, shows released altered from how they originally were? Sure, you are correct, nothing can be altered after your purchase, but to be fair, this is a show that is streaming and not a digital copy per say. It is more inline with a cable series. And before you start, I know that people claim their digital copies have been altered. I can tell you one of the reasons I stopped solely redeeming in iTunes is because they wouldn’t give me my unrated version of Bridesmaids when my computer got wiped

That's why it's best if shows and movies are released on physical media as soon as possible. Less time between the original broadcast and the physical release means less time for the content providers to decide to change something. If they decide to change something later it won't affect any of the discs that are already in customers' hands.

More support for physical media means more releases on physical media and a faster turnaround for each one. More releases on physical media means more movies and TV shows that can't ever be modified.

[The_Donster]

Hey, I’m still waiting on unaltered HD/UHD versions of the original Star Wars and the first Highlander movie

[sapiendut]

I don’t understand how this question even be asked. A given title’s 4K streaming maxed out at 25 Mbps and the UHD physical media at 100 Mbps. HD streams at 15 Mbps max and BD at around 30 Mbps.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by The_Donster

Hey, I’m still waiting on unaltered versions of the original Star Wars and the first Highlander move

Unaltered versions of Star Wars exist on physical media, they just aren't on Blu-ray. No one can ever take them away.
https://www.blu-ray.com/dvd/Star-War...ope-DVD/19310/

I would assume unaltered versions of Highlander also exists in some physical form, but I don't know enough about it to say for sure.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by The_Donster

Yes, but how many movies, and to a lesser extent, shows released altered from how they originally were? Sure, you are correct, nothing can be altered after your purchase, but to be fair, this is a show that is streaming and not a digital copy per say. It is more inline with a cable series. And before you start, I know that people claim their digital copies have been altered. I can tell you one of the reasons I stopped solely redeeming in iTunes is because they wouldn’t give me my unrated version of Bridesmaids when my computer got wiped

Sure, sometimes what we are offered on disc has been altered in some way from the original presentation. When that something is an extended or director's cut, these alterations are usually welcomed if the original presentation is also offered or at least available. Obviously, deletions of, or changes to, scenes, dialog, and or music are not so welcome.

Unlike digital purchases, though, I can thoroughly research a disc release before I buy it, right here on this very website no less, and thereby learn exactly what I would be getting AND I can rest assured that once I do buy that disc that the content on it will never be altered.

[The_Donster]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

Unaltered versions of Star Wars exist on physical media, they just aren't on Blu-ray. No one can ever take them away.
https://www.blu-ray.com/dvd/Star-War...ope-DVD/19310/

I would assume unaltered versions of Highlander also exists in some physical form, but I don't know enough about it to say for sure.

Thanks for catching that. It looks like my overzealous autocorrect decided to do some editing. How’s that for censorship Yep, have that version of them on DVD. It was a backhanded gesture, but a topic for the appropriate thread. Both they and Highlander are a available going back as far as VHS in other formats.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Stacey Spears was asked about the possibility of a streaming version of their test disc and he said it would be very difficult to do because with streaming there is no menu system. So for DIY display calibration, better scarf up that latest version of Spears & Munsil UHD HDR Benchmark test disc and get cracking. Some instructions on use here.

And folks will not need to worry about patterns or test signals being removed from their disc .

[The_Donster]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

Stacey Spears was asked about the possibility of a streaming version of their test disc and he said it would be very difficult to do because with streaming there is no menu system. So for DIY display calibration, better scarf up that latest version of Spears & Munsil UHD HDR Benchmark test disc and get cracking. Some instructions on use here.

And folks will not need to worry about patterns or test signals being removed from their disc .

And Wendell comes out of left field for the play of the day

[The_Donster]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Sure, sometimes what we are offered on disc has been altered in some way from the original presentation. When that something is an extended or director's cut, these alterations are usually welcomed if the original presentation is also offered or at least available. Obviously, deletions of, or changes to, scenes, dialog, and or music are not so welcome.

Unlike digital purchases, though, I can thoroughly research a disc release before I buy it, right here on this very website no less, and thereby learn exactly what I would be getting AND I can rest assured that once I do buy that disc that the content on it will never be altered.

Unlike our posts Seriously though, I don’t concern myself too much with digital copies, other than where to redeem them. Most of them come with my physical copies. I love extra features and alternate cuts personally. Unfortunately with my tv in the front room I don’t get a lot of time to use it as much as I did when I had a dedicated room to myself

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by sapiendut

I don’t understand how this question even be asked. A given title’s 4K streaming maxed out at 25 Mbps and the UHD physical media at 100 Mbps. HD streams at 15 Mbps max and BD at around 30 Mbps.

A 100 gb capacity 4K disc has a maximum bitrate of 128 Mbps and the maximum bitrate of a blu-ray disc is actually 48 Mbps.

"Dual-layer UHDBR discs (66GB capacity) will support a max bitrate of 108Mbps, while triple-layer discs (100GB) will allow for up to 128Mbps."

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015...10-bit-colour/

"BD Video movies have a maximum data transfer rate of 54 Mbit/s, a maximum AV bitrate of 48 Mbit/s (for both audio and video data), and a maximum video bit rate of 40 Mbit/s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray#Bit_rate

Mbit/s =Mbps

"megabit per second (symbol Mbit/s or Mb/s, often abbreviated "Mbps") is a unit of data transfer rate."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data-r...bit_per_second

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by The_Donster

Unlike our posts Seriously though, I don’t concern myself too much with digital copies, other than where to redeem them. Most of them come with my physical copies. I love extra features and alternate cuts personally. Unfortunately with my tv in the front room I don’t get a lot of time to use it as much as I did when I had a dedicated room to myself

I have only redeemed 137 digital copies and most of those were redeemed unintentionally as they were the automatic carry over from when I would redeem codes to get Disney Movie Rewards points. The points allowed me to get some select disc titles for free. When Disney created MA, these just all migrated over to that system.

I simply ignore the vast, vast majority of the code sheets that come with my discs. I do not redeem much at Disney's Rewards site anymore, either, as I now import most of my Disney movies from Amazon.uk in order to obtain the 3D edition. Codes included with my imports do not play nice here when they are included at all.

Even though I have 137 digital titles, I have not watched a single one of them. Why would I? I have the much superior disc right here on my shelves.

[The_Donster]

[octagon]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

More censorship of digital:

https://tvline.com/2019/07/15/13-rea...moved-netflix/

Fortunately they can't edit any of the DVDs they've already released.

This isn't censorship. They've decided to alter their own stuff.

That's a lot of things but it ain't censorship.

Originally Posted by Steedeel

It’s wrong full stop (or period as you guys say).

Art should be expressed in its full state.

No, there's a little more to it than that.

The people who own these intellectual properties have rights. Whatever I might have think of Disney's reluctance to release Song of the South, it's their movie. They own it. It belongs to them. What state it should be expressed in or whether it should be expressed at all isn't up to me. It's up to them.

And what happens when artists change their minds?

The guys who made The Simpsons decided they no longer wanted to be associated with the Michael Jackson episode. Do they get to decide how their art should be expressed or do we?

George Lucas edited his movies and refused to release the original cuts after porting a weak laserdisc transfer to DVD. Are the new cuts the 'full state' and should the Star Wars movies only and forever be expressed in that state?

Full stop?

Or might there be a little more to it than that?

[sapiendut]

Self censorship is censorship

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by octagon

This isn't censorship. They've decided to alter their own stuff.

That's a lot of things but it ain't censorship.

It is censorship; self-censorship is what we have here and it is just one type, among several types, of censorship.

No one is arguing the legality of their action; of course they have the legal right to do it.

[octagon]

No, self-censorship is an oxymoron.

This isn't censorship. These are editorial decisions.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by octagon

This isn't censorship. They've decided to alter their own stuff.

That's a lot of things but it ain't censorship.



No, there's a little more to it than that.

The people who own these intellectual properties have rights. Whatever I might have think of Disney's reluctance to release Song of the South, it's their movie. They own it. It belongs to them. What state it should be expressed in or whether it should be expressed at all isn't up to me. It's up to them.

And what happens when artists change their minds?

The guys who made The Simpsons decided they no longer wanted to be associated with the Michael Jackson episode. Do they get to decide how their art should be expressed or do we?

George Lucas edited his movies and refused to release the original cuts after porting a weak laserdisc transfer to DVD. Are the new cuts the 'full state' and should the Star Wars movies only and forever be expressed in that state?

Full stop?

Or might there be a little more to it than that?

If a piece of art is put out there, it should stay out there. Once you reduce this or delete that, you have bastardised that work. Work that has produced fruits for that artist.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by octagon

No, self-censorship is an oxymoron.

This isn't censorship. These are editorial decisions.

I posted countless definitions for censorship previously in another thread and self-censorship is a recognized and established type of it. Citations to follow.

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by a government, private institutions, and corporations."

"Self-censorship is the act of censoring or classifying one's own discourse. This is done out of fear of, or deference to, the sensibilities or preferences (actual or perceived) of others and without overt pressure from any specific party or institution of authority. Self-censorship is often practiced by film producers, film directors, publishers, news anchors, journalists, musicians, and other kinds of authors including individuals who use social media."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censor...elf-censorship

"Censorship blocks something from being read, heard, or seen. If you've ever heard the sound of bleeping when someone is speaking on television, that's censorship.

To "censor" is to review something and to choose to remove or hide parts of it that are considered unacceptable. Censorship is the name for the process or idea of keeping things like obscene word or graphic images from an audience. There is also such a thing as self-censorship, which is when you refrain from saying certain things — or possibly re-wording them — depending on who is listening."

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/censorship

"The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security."

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/censorship

"Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups."

https://www.aclu.org/other/what-censorship

"A censor, traditionally, is an official whose job it is to examine literature, movies, or other forms of creative expression and to remove or ban anything she considers unsuitable. In this definition, censorship is something the government does. But censorship can also be accomplished very effectively by private groups.

Not all forms of censorship are illegal. When private individuals agitate to eliminate TV programs they dislike, or threaten to boycott the companies that support those programs with advertising dollars, they are certainly trying to censor artistic expression and interfere with the free speech of others. But their actions are perfectly legal; in fact, their protests are protected by the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

Not even all government censorship is unlawful. For example, we still have laws against “obscenity” in art and entertainment. These laws allow the government to punish people for producing or disseminating material about sex, if a judge or jury thinks the material is sufficiently offensive and lacks any “serious value.”

https://ncac.org/resource/what-is-censorship

"deleting parts of publications or correspondence or theatrical performances."

"Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body. It can be done by governments and private organizations or by individuals who engage in self-censorship."

https://www.definitions.net/definition/censorship

"the process of removing parts of books, movies, letters, etc. that are considered inappropriate for moral, religious, or political reasons. Related words: self-censorship."

https://www.macmillandictionary.com/...can/censorship

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

If a piece of art is put out there, it should stay out there. Once you reduce this or delete that, you have bastardised that work. Work that has produced fruits for that artist.

But whose call is that? What if the artist wants to 'bastardize' their own work?

This isn't as black and white as people like to make it out to be.